BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writ

Ordered,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the constituency of Belfast West in the room of Mr Gerry Adams, who since his election has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.— (Mr McLoughlin.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Navy (Libya)

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of Royal Navy requirements in the context of the military action in Libya.

Peter Luff: Before answering my hon. Friend’s question, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Warrant Officer Class 2 Graham Bean of 73 Engineer Regiment (Volunteers) who died on 3 May while serving in Cyprus on Operation Tosca with the United Nations peacekeeping force based in Nicosia. He had a long and successful career in the British Army for over 35 years. Our thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family. Our thoughts are also with the family and friends of the Royal Marine from 42 Commando who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan yesterday. More information will be released shortly after the period of grace requested by his family.
	Our assessment of the Royal Navy’s requirements was set out in the strategic defence and security review. Events in Libya have confirmed the review’s recognition of the need to retain naval forces at high readiness for operations.

Anne McIntosh: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the recently fallen; we will remember them.
	Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the ship’s company of the frigate HMS Cumberland, with whom a number of us were able to stay as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme? Will he take the opportunity to update us on the question of which frigate has replaced HMS Cumberland for the essential duties she has so far performed in assisting off the coast of Libya?

Peter Luff: Speaking as someone who has done two tours of duty with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I know how deep are the bonds of loyalty that can be formed with ships’ companies after such experiences. HMS Cumberland and her crew performed superbly in the initial stages of the Libya operation, evacuating British and other foreign nationals from Benghazi and undertaking enforcement operations in support of UN Security Council resolution 1973. She has now been withdrawn from service and her role off Libya has been taken up by the destroyer, HMS Liverpool.

Libya

Grahame Morris: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

William Bain: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Fox: While NATO’s airstrikes have been successful in reducing Colonel Gaddafi’s ability to attack his people, he continues to target civilians in clear contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. The UK has 23 aircraft and two naval vessels committed to the NATO-led operation. These continue to provide vital capability in support of UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Grahame Morris: I would like to associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), about those brave service personnel who sadly lost their lives in service of their country.
	On the Secretary of State’s answer, in view of concerns expressed, not least by the joint chiefs, about the affordability and sustainability of the UK’s continued military operation in Libya, will he advise us of what further diplomatic efforts are being pursued to find a non-military solution to the current conflict?

Liam Fox: There is a very clear non-military solution to the current conflict: Colonel Gaddafi could stop attacking the civilian population in Libya. Until he does so, the international community will continue the military action, which we believe to be affordable and sustainable at the present time.

William Bain: Does the Secretary of State share the assessment of Lady Amos that the bombardment of Misrata and the western mountain regions has led to an unacceptable situation in which aid convoys are unable to get the water, medicine and food that the people of these areas need? What further pressure can be put on the Gaddafi regime to stop this intolerable bombing and shelling?

Liam Fox: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. In recent days, we have made it very clear through NATO that we intend to continue to degrade Colonel Gaddafi’s command and control capability, including his intelligence network. The regime needs to understand loud and clear that the international community is very resolute: it will continue its military activity as long as this absolutely unacceptable slaughter of the civilian population continues. I hope that the whole House will also be resolute in sending out a very clear message on that front.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding what the Chief of Defence Staff said over the weekend, our mission in Libya is humanitarian, and is about seeking a ceasefire and not about regime change?

Liam Fox: Security Council resolution 1973 authorised the use of force for three different purposes: enforcement of the arms embargo, enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, and the protection of civilians. Those are the clear delineations of our mission, and all the
	activities in which we have engaged, including our target sets, have fallen within the requirements of resolution 1973.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State is reported to have endorsed, over the weekend, General Richards’s call for an enlargement of the number of targets in Libya to include infrastructure targets. Has he received a legal opinion that that conforms with resolution 1973?

Liam Fox: I confirmed over the weekend that NATO is continually reassessing the target sets within the targeting directive, which itself follows from resolution 1973. We believe that at all times the target-setting has been well within the requirements of that resolution, and I take responsibility for the setting, observation and implementation of targets very seriously indeed.

Jim Murphy: The Secretary of State will know that we are committed to a bipartisan approach on Libya. I join the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), in his condolences and prayers for the family of one officer, Graham Bean, and the as yet unnamed Royal Marine.
	The men and women of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air force have done remarkable work in and around Libya. However, may I ask the Secretary of State about the comment by the First Sea Lord that if operations around Libya were to last longer than six months, a significant “challenge” would be created? Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment, and what military advice has he received about maintaining the current UK tempo of military activity beyond those six months?

Liam Fox: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support, but, as he is well aware, contingency planning goes on because we do not know how long Colonel Gaddafi will continue his resistance to international opinion and in the face of international law. We will continue to look at the range of contingencies, but we all hope that Colonel Gaddafi will recognise that the game is up either sooner or later—hopefully sooner—so that the cost, in terms not just of money but, more important, of lives, is minimised in the months ahead. We will look at all contingencies, but it is important to recognise that we are resolute and that the work of the international community, whose military leaders met at the weekend, will not cease until the task is properly carried out.

Jim Murphy: I welcome that response, but today’s newspapers report further MOD cuts and the fact that the MOD is undertaking a three-month internal spending review. The Secretary of State says ,“We will look at all contingencies”, but in the light of those reports, the events in Libya and the rest of north Africa, and the further events that are spreading across the middle east, should he not finally agree with Lord Ashdown, General Dannatt, the Army Families Federation and most members of the defence community that now is the time to reopen the rushed and increasingly discredited Government defence review?

Liam Fox: Those who wish us to reopen the strategic defence and security review, and who are looking at the same real world and at the same financial constraints, need to tell us whether they would provide a larger defence budget. If they continue with the same assumptions in the same real world but do not increase the budget, they will see the same outcome because they will be under the same constraints. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will finally tell us whether Labour intends to retain the same defence budget or to reduce the defence budget, because that is the key element in the equation.

Defence Procurement

Chi Onwurah: What his policy is on the use of defence procurement to support and stimulate advanced manufacturing.

Peter Luff: Advanced manufacturing industry in the UK makes such an important contribution to defence and the armed forces. We have recently concluded public consultation on the Green Paper “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security”, in which we make it clear that the purpose of defence procurement is to deliver the capabilities that the armed forces need, now and in the future. We will set out our future policy on the issue in a White Paper later in the year.

Chi Onwurah: Last month BAE Systems announced 100 job losses at its plant in Scotswood, Newcastle. As well as devastating families, those job losses will reduce our advanced engineering skills base. What specific measures is the Minister taking to ensure that procurement supports skills that are essential to our national infrastructure, and how do they sit with the Government’s policy of buying off the shelf without taking industrial needs into account?

Peter Luff: The hon. Lady tempts me to pre-judge the outcome of my own consultation, which I must not do, but let me say this: I share her passion for advanced manufacturing and I again pay tribute to its role in defence. We are committed to both a vigorous promotion of exports and boosting UK defence companies in the UK, and to boosting the work of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are innovative and bring new ideas and skills to defence. We are also committed to maintaining the science budget, as called for in response to our consultation by all those advanced manufacturing companies of which she spoke. We are doing a lot to help advanced manufacturing, but the hon. Lady will have to be a little more patient and wait until the White Paper is published.

James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that Government spending on defence research and technology is absolutely essential for maintaining the battle-winning edge for our armed forces in 25 years’ time? Does he also agree that if there is a reduction in defence research because of short-term budget pressures, the long-term effect will be very great indeed?

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I could not agree more. I can confirm what I have said to him in the past: the budget for science and technology will increase in cash terms over the comprehensive spending review period. However, I share his enthusiasm about ensuring that we maintain future capabilities as well. It is very important that the science budget is not simply focused on current operations. It must be forward looking, too, to ensure that we have the capabilities that we need.

Michael Dugher: The Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern that the Government might be planning to announce an extremely limited definition of what constitutes sovereign capability in their forthcoming White Paper, meaning that in many important sectors the Government will retreat to their default position and, to quote the Government’s Green Paper,
	“to buy off-the-shelf where we can”.
	Will the Minister assure the House that the White Paper will be an opportunity to set a clear strategy to use defence procurement to support our manufacturing base, in particular the intellectual property here in the United Kingdom, thus recognising the contribution that defence makes to the wider economy?

Peter Luff: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that specific assurance. Defence money is for defence purposes, but I share his enthusiasm for the defence industrial base. I understand exactly what he says. We will be scrupulously honest with the British people and UK defence companies. I am afraid that although the previous defence industrial strategy was immensely popular, it did not have the money to match its promises. We will deliver what we promise.

Council Tax Rebates

Alun Michael: Whether he has discussed with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the merits of a council tax rebate for members of the armed forces who are serving overseas.

Andrew Robathan: The Government recognise the value of council tax rebates for many members of the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement to the House on this matter later today.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. One constituent who raised the question with me was not looking for blanket discretion for all deployments, but said that there was some resentment among those deployed to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq when they found that different local authorities exercised their discretion in different ways. Will the Minister encourage consistency and generosity in this matter?

Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We would encourage consistency. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. [ Interruption ]. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. However, if
	people are in receipt of the deployed welfare package, they get council tax relief, which is paid for by the Ministry of Defence. What local councils do at the moment is up to them. We encourage them to give due discretion where possible and to assist our members deployed on operations overseas.

Security Situation (Pakistan and Afghanistan)

David Hanson: What discussions on security and defence issues he has had with his counterparts in the US Administration, Pakistan and Afghanistan following the death of Osama bin Laden.

Liam Fox: I regularly discuss a number of security and defence issues with my counterparts in the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The death of Osama bin Laden is a positive development in terms of our counter-terrorism effort, but it does not change our strategy in Afghanistan. We remain committed to our military, diplomatic, and development work to build a stable and secure Afghanistan.

David Hanson: The head of the snake may have been removed, but the bombings in Pakistan at the weekend show that there is still considerable al-Qaeda activity in the region. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the Prime Minister’s potential announcement of early withdrawals of troops in the summer is of concern, particularly given the fears expressed publicly by defence staff for the safety of British residents at home and abroad as a result of that policy?

Liam Fox: We are committed to maintaining the level of troops that we need for our main effort in the southern part of Afghanistan. The number of combat troops that we have had in Helmand has been at a consistent level, our force densities have improved and we intend to make no changes to those numbers until we see an improvement in the security situation there.

Julian Lewis: Is it not rather depressing that after everything that has happened in Afghanistan and, in particular, to the former Taliban regime there, people in the Taliban have not learned their lesson that al-Qaeda is poison to them? That was shown by the demonstrations against the death of bin Laden on the part of the Pakistani Taliban. If the Taliban want to be part of a settlement, is it not time that they realised how poisonous the al-Qaeda connection has always been?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes a truly excellent point. We need to recognise that al-Qaeda involves violent political extremism that will guarantee no country and none of its people’s safety and security. The quicker that those who have previously dallied with the Taliban recognise that that cannot be a route for peace and reconciliation in the long term, the better.

Russell Brown: Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I fully agree that any troop withdrawal should be based on sound military advice and that the lives of our brave servicemen and
	women, and civilians, should not be put at risk by any kind of premature withdrawal. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will resist the temptation to make any announcements about early withdrawal that may coincide with the visit of President Obama?

Liam Fox: As I have pointed out in the House before, we maintain a core force of some 9,500 troops in Afghanistan. The number has risen to as high as 11,000 over the past year, partly due to temporary surges. It is a normal part of the process in Afghanistan that that number will rise and fall but, as I said, the important element in respect of that number is that we maintain our core commitment to the south of Afghanistan and our combat force there.

Armed Forces Day 2012

Oliver Colvile: When he expects to make a decision on the location of events to mark the 2012 Armed Forces day for the nation.

Andrew Robathan: Plans for the national event to mark Armed Forces day 2012 are being considered and a decision will be announced as soon as possible. In the meantime, I look forward to this year’s Armed Forces day on Saturday 25 June, including the national event, which will be hosted by Edinburgh.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for all his care and diligence in deciding on the location. Is he able to share with us the criteria that will be used in making that decision?

Andrew Robathan: On the subject of honouring our armed forces, I think that the whole House would wish me to remind everyone that today is Albuhera day—the Middlesex day. Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Albuhera, and that explains the naming of Middlesex day. The Middlesex Regiment subsequently became known as the Duke of Cambridge’s Own Regiment, which is particularly fitting this year.
	In answer to my hon. Friend’s question about Armed Forces day, I can say that there are no set criteria. However, I have heard at great length his pleas on behalf of Plymouth and I shall certainly bear them in mind.

Chris Bryant: May I urge that one criterion might be that the area sends a lot of young men and women into the armed forces? That would enable the Minister, next year or in a future year, to consider using not just the major cities or the major places where people are based, but an area such as the south Wales valleys, which sends a very large number of people into the armed forces—that is, as long as he has not made the wrong decision about 160 Brigade being based in Brecon.

Andrew Robathan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have made no decisions about 160 Brigade. Of course the main national event for Armed Forces day was in Cardiff last year. It is the responsibility of local authorities to deal with the infrastructure and the work involved in the Armed Forces day celebrations. If people in the
	south Wales valleys say that they will arrange a great event there that could be the national focus, I am sure that we would listen to that sympathetically as well.

Middle East

Mel Stride: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the security situation in the middle east.

Nick Harvey: Recent events in the middle east have demonstrated that the central finding of the strategic defence and security review—the need for the UK to adopt an adaptable posture with flexible forces—was appropriate. Given the vital importance of the region to the UK’s long-term interests, we will continue to monitor the still evolving situation before drawing conclusions on if and how it could influence the Department’s policies.

Mel Stride: Does my hon. Friend agree that our allies in the Gulf play a vital role in ensuring security and stability in the region and that it is imperative that our Government continue to engage constructively and positively with them, particularly in these uncertain times?

Nick Harvey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Gulf states are key partners in the battle against international terrorism and more widely. That said, we are concerned at events in some of the Gulf states. We urge all Governments to meet their human rights obligations, to uphold political freedoms and to recognise that those things do not run contrary to security but are in fact integral to longer-term stability. We believe that dialogue is the way to fulfil the aspirations of all, and we urge all sides, including opposition groupings, to engage.

Denis MacShane: The Government, rightly in my view, are calling for Colonel Gaddafi to be referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, should be similarly referred because he is killing and torturing just as many people in Syria as Gaddafi is in Libya?

Nick Harvey: I understand that Gaddafi has already been referred to the court and that that decision was taken internationally at the ICC. I entirely see the comparison that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing and it would seem to me that the international forces that reached the conclusions they did about Gaddafi are highly likely to arrive at a similar conclusion.

Improvised Explosive Devices (Afghanistan)

Jack Lopresti: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of equipment provided to the armed forces to counter improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Luff: An impressive range of capabilities is in service to counter the threat from IEDs that our armed
	forces in Afghanistan face; our personnel are trained and equipped to apply a range of tactics, techniques and procedures. Defeating the threat is a vital part of the counter-insurgency campaign, and the equipment we are fielding against these sordid devices is widely recognised as being better than ever. However, as demonstrated by the weekend’s tragic news, which I reported to the House earlier, we are up against a determined enemy and must continue to invest in this area.

Jack Lopresti: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he satisfied that we have sufficient equipment levels in place to train Afghan national forces to counter IEDs and that progress is being made in this area?

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a gunner who served in Afghanistan two years ago. He certainly knows what he is talking about. I can reassure him that equipping and training the Afghan national security force is a crucial part of NATO’s common counter-IED strategy. It is of course the job of the international security assistance force, which has the lead for training and equipment. I can assure him that the UK comfortably meets its responsibilities in this respect, but it is a challenging task and one to which we are fully committed because it forms the foundation for our eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the Minister assure the House that the review and the spending difficulties that the Department has will not affect in any way his commitment to the speed of manufacture, and the number of vehicles manufactured, of the light protected patrol vehicles that are so badly needed in Afghanistan?

Peter Luff: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I hold him in very high regard and personal esteem, and with some affection. I gently remind him that it is not a problem we have but a problem we inherited, and we are dealing with it. I can, though, give him the categorical assurance that he is seeking that those matters will have no impact on the operations in Afghanistan.

NATO

James Morris: What steps he is taking to seek the modernisation of NATO.

Graham Evans: What steps he is taking to seek the modernisation of NATO.

Gerald Howarth: The UK is playing a leading role in the push to modernise NATO through the reform of its supporting agencies and improving its financial management and programming. The UK is also a leading proponent of important work to streamline NATO’s command structure. We hope to reach final agreement at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers next month, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending.

James Morris: The role and purpose of NATO has changed radically over the past 20 years. Does the Minister agree that NATO needs to concentrate on
	reviewing its strategic purpose as well as finding new ways of interacting with other international institutions in a world that is radically different from that of the cold war?

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, but I suggest to him not only that article 5 is absolutely central to NATO’s mission but that since 1989, as Afghanistan, the anti-piracy operations in the Arabian sea and the Libyan operation have shown, NATO has already developed remarkable flexibility and is working with other institutions, most notably the European Union, where we are seeking to ensure there is no duplication.

Graham Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO remains the cornerstone of the UK’s defence, and will he resist any attempt by the EU to challenge that position?

Gerald Howarth: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance on behalf of the entire Government.

David Crausby: Does the Minister agree that any modernisation of NATO should ensure that those member nations who have the troop numbers and resources, such as Germany, should pull their weight in the same way that we do in NATO operations such as those in Afghanistan and Libya?

Gerald Howarth: I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said in response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), a number of NATO countries seek to take advantage of article 5 and the other protections that NATO gives them without divvying up the membership fee. That is certainly something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working on—showing other countries that if they want the protection of NATO, they have to contribute to its funding.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister assure the House that there will be careful analysis of what went wrong in the early days of the Libyan encounter? Ever since the United States seems to have pulled back on its operational activity, we seem to be have been much less effective at defending innocent people in that country.

Gerald Howarth: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly churlish. I was extraordinarily impressed by the speed with which NATO responded. After all, there was a United Nations resolution and no mechanism by which it was going to be implemented. It is hugely to NATO’s credit, and particularly to the credit of its Secretary-General, that he and it made those structures available to enable support for the Libyan people to be provided not only by NATO but by many other countries. I am sure there will be a review about how successful everything has been in due course.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the programme of modernisation, which is very welcome, and NATO’s extremely effective and speedy response over Libya, the question of NATO’s transformation is proceeding not
	nearly fast enough? Does he agree that it would be a pity if the Ministers’ meeting at NATO did not come up with a really substantial reform in that department?

Gerald Howarth: As ever, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. He is absolutely right and we are absolutely determined. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pressing ahead with transformation. We have led the way on this and we are determined not to let the issue lapse because if NATO is not efficient, lean and modern, it will not be able to deliver what we all seek.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Steve Brine: When he expects to receive the findings of the independent health needs audit of British nuclear test veterans; and whether he plans to publish a response to the study.

Andrew Robathan: The findings of the health needs audit are expected this summer. The study will document veterans’ self-reported experience of ill health and their experience of health and social care services, and it aims to provide practical, forward-looking recommendations on how health and social care services for this group could be improved. We intend to share the outcome of this work with other relevant areas, such as the Department of Health, and we will publish the report’s findings and any response.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister very much for that response. Like many Members, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s statement on the armed forces covenant shortly. One could argue that the duty of care it entails is also relevant to Britain’s nuclear test veterans. What action is the Minister able to take after so many years—it has been many years now—properly to recognise the sacrifices of our nuclear test veterans and to bring some much-needed closure to survivors and their families?

Andrew Robathan: I think the whole House would join me in paying tribute to those who served in the armed forces in the 1950s. Most of those involved were national servicemen and were doing their duty, as it was explained to them, by witnessing the nuclear explosions. We provide war pensions to anyone who suffers from an ailment that is linked to the service they underwent, such as watching nuclear tests, but it is necessary that we provide pensions and compensation only to those who were harmed by their service.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that this is a sad and sorry business? Those people suffered grievously many years ago and successive Governments have prevaricated and obfuscated on the matter. The nuclear test veterans need help, support and compensation, and above all they need an apology from successive Governments for the way they have been treated.

Andrew Robathan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that people suffered grievously. Some people are of course ill, and some are ill because of their service. It is important that the Government should
	look to that. The previous Government did, as we do, through the war pensions system. However, there is no study showing that people who witnessed those nuclear tests have more cases of cancer than their cohort groups. We must base our response and expenditure of taxpayers’ money on evidence, not on emotion.

Basing Review

Elizabeth Truss: When he plans to publish the recommendations of his Department’s basing review.

Nick Harvey: As I have said before, the Ministry of Defence will make an announcement as soon as we are in a position to do so, and that will be before the summer recess. But as I have also said, this is a complex piece of work and we will take the time necessary to make sure we reach the right conclusions.

Elizabeth Truss: On Friday I attended the disbandment parade of 13 Squadron at RAF Marham, which was a moment of both pride and sadness. Given the additional commitments taken on by the RAF in Libya and the statement by the Chief of the Air Staff that our air force is heavily stretched, will that have an impact on the basing review?

Nick Harvey: That will not have an impact on the basing review, but I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to everybody involved with 13 Squadron, which was involved in the early stages of the operation in Libya and has a proud history going back 96 years, including distinguished service in the second world war and later in the no-fly zone in Iraq and Operation Telic. The name will live on next year when a new squadron of reaper, the remotely piloted aircraft, will take on the number 13, and I am pleased to say that most of the personnel involved have been found other roles elsewhere in the Tornado force.

Angus Robertson: At the time of the strategic defence and security review, the Secretary of State told me that the basing review affecting RAF Lossiemouth would be concluded before the end of December 2010. That was put back to the end of February 2011, and we are still waiting. The delays are causing uncertainty and economic damage in Moray and, I am sure, likewise in Fife, Norfolk and elsewhere. Does the Minister agree that the least that service communities should expect is a definitive date and no more delays?

Nick Harvey: As I said a moment ago, this is a complex piece of work. The Army coming home from Germany happens only once, and the future lay-down of the Army and the basing of the British Army for the future is something that we have to get right. It is necessary to take the time to get those decisions right. I understand the impact that waiting for a decision has on local communities, but it is more important that we get this right than that we do it fast. As I said a moment ago, we will make an announcement by the summer recess.

Menzies Campbell: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the professionalism and commitment of the men and women who serve at RAF Leuchars, which he saw for himself earlier this year, continue, notwithstanding uncertainty about the future of the base. What view does he take of the kind of speculation that we saw last week, apparently originating from within the House, which appears to suggest that decisions affecting RAF Leuchars have already been taken?

Nick Harvey: I am pleased to hear that the professionalism of those serving at Leuchars, which I saw for myself recently, remains unaffected. There has been some ill-informed and unhelpful speculation in the media. In particular, last week there was a routine meeting to discuss all aspects of defence reform. It was absolutely not the case that there was ever any prospect of decisions being taken at that meeting, nor was there any proposal to that effect on the table. This is important work, and there is more work ongoing. I categorically assure my right hon. and learned Friend that no such decision has been taken, and we will come to the House as soon as we are in a position to do so.

Kevan Jones: Last week the Chief of the General Staff told the Defence Committee that substantial investment in accommodation and training facilities will be needed if the Government are to be able to meet their challenging target of withdrawing half the troops currently based in Germany by 2015, let alone withdrawing the rest by 2020. What assessment has the Minister made of the cost of this policy and will it come out of the current departmental financial settlement?

Nick Harvey: The Chief of the General Staff was absolutely right to say that the accommodation that the British Army will need must be of the highest standard. What that will cost will depend entirely on the decisions that are taken on where the Army will go and the state of readiness of any facilities into which we might propose to move them. The figures will emerge when we know where we are sending them and what will have to be built in readiness to receive them.

Military Covenant

Mary Glindon: What steps the Government plan to take to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to enshrine the military covenant in law.

Liam Fox: The Prime Minister’s pledge is being fulfilled through the Armed Forces Bill, which recognises the armed forces covenant in statute for the first time. I will make a further announcement to the House shortly.

Mary Glindon: What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House and members of the armed forces, such as my constituent, 19-year-old Private James Kenny of C company, 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who has recently returned from active service in Afghanistan, that an independent panel will be set up to report on the Government’s performance in relation to the military covenant?

Liam Fox: I have said repeatedly in the House, in answer to similar questions, that I want the widest possible consultation and the widest possible transparency. If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will set out the details shortly.

Charlie Elphicke: Is not today an important day of justice for the honouring of the armed forces after the disgraceful neglect of the past 10 years?

Liam Fox: I think that the whole House, in fact the whole country, will want today to rally behind the Government’s proposals, which I believe represent a wide consensus across those with different political views and those with none.

Gemma Doyle: I have not had the misfortune of getting into a lift with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), but I have spent many hours debating the military covenant with him. I was therefore very surprised to learn at the weekend that he has performed not only a U-turn on the matter, but a double U-turn. He had said previously that he did not believe that a veterans ID card was necessary. What does the Secretary of State think?

Liam Fox: I am not sure what a double U-turn looks like. Again, I will be outlining the proposals, which will be available in the documents that will be published and available to the House, very shortly.

Afghanistan

Patrick Mercer: What plans his Department has to reinforce troops in Afghanistan over the summer campaigning season.

Nick Harvey: Following the increase in troop numbers as a result of the international security assistance force surge in the second half of 2010 and the continuing increase in both the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces, I am confident that there are sufficient forces in Afghanistan to meet the insurgent threat over the coming months. For that reason, there are no plans to increase the UK’s endorsed force levels.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but there are a considerable number of troops in Afghanistan, a considerable number of forces operating in Libya, and I have no doubt that further military operations will be required in other parts of north Africa. I understand that defence cuts need to be made, but can he assure me that those currently being discussed will not include any further cuts to combat forces?

Nick Harvey: I am not aware of the discussions to which my hon. refers, but I can absolutely assure him that there will be no reductions in the number of front-line fighting troops for the very reasons he gives.

Paul Flynn: The justification for dismantling improvised explosive devices, rather than blowing them up, is that those who made them can be identified and captured. As this has resulted in the
	deaths of many of our brave soldiers, should we not alter the policy, particularly now that the prisoners are escaping in such huge numbers?

Nick Harvey: It is certainly not the case that we always go for the option of dismantling IEDs, as some of them are destroyed, but as part of the ongoing effort to counter the IED threat it is absolutely vital that we have an understanding of how they are made and who is making them. It is absolutely essential intelligence to us—to garner that information on occasions—and we have no intention of changing that approach.

Defence Equipment

Paul Uppal: What progress has been made on his Department’s consultation on equipment, support and technology for UK defence and security.

Peter Luff: My colleagues in the Home Office and I are very pleased with the results of the public consultation, which ended on 31 March, on the recent Green Paper. We used a number of mechanisms, notably conferences, regional visits and a dedicated website, to encourage wide participation, and we received 143 separate written reports from individuals, companies and organisations, as well as more than 200 comments on the website. We are now analysing the information received and will publish a summary of the consultation responses later this year, alongside the planned White Paper.

Paul Uppal: Given the value of the defence sector to our economy, what steps are being taken to ensure that prosperity can continue to flourish, and that the whole UK economy can benefit?

Peter Luff: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Ministers in the Department are committed to the Government’s policy of export-led growth, whereby the Government are making radical steps to ensure that responsible defence exports are actively promoted. This year I have visited India, Japan and Turkey on precisely that mission, and all members of my ministerial team have made similar such visits to ensure that the outcome my hon. Friend rightly seeks is achieved.

Service Family Accommodation

Alison Seabeck: What plans he has for the future of service family accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Robathan: In the strategic defence and security review published on 19 October last year, we announced that we will undertake a detailed review of our approach to accommodation with the aim of meeting the aspirations of service personnel for affordable and good-quality housing. Work is now under way and we will report in the summer of 2012.

Alison Seabeck: I draw the House’s attention to the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and
	Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), for reasons that I have put on the record on a number of occasions already this Session.
	All the evidence is that constant moving, perhaps every couple of years, between homes and schools for service personnel and their families is extremely destabilising and not good for family life. Has the Minister therefore made any representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government about the impact of the flexible tenure proposal in the Localism Bill, and about the effect that it will have of perpetuating the cycle that such people currently experience?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Lady is quite right: service personnel can be disadvantaged in many ways by the many moves that they make. As it happens, not two hours ago I was at a meeting at the Department for Communities and Local Government with the Housing Minister to discuss that among other matters. Unfortunately, I left before that matter came up on the agenda in order to come to the House, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are looking at the issue very carefully and we did have that conference this lunchtime.

Topical Questions

Phil Wilson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Liam Fox: My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks; and that we honour the armed forces covenant.

Phil Wilson: Following the First Sea Lord’s comments that he wished he could revisit the Government’s position on the Ark Royal and the Harrier jets, and that if the UK had an aircraft carrier it would be deployed in Libya, will the Minister consider reversing the decision on the Ark Royal and explore ways of closing the carrier strike-capability gap?

Liam Fox: What is important in Libya is the fact that we are able to project our air power in an effective and timely manner, and we are able to do that because we have no problems with basing or with over-flight, which is exactly the analysis that we made in the strategic defence and security review.

Penny Mordaunt: I welcome the historic decision to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law, but what else is being done to ensure that ex-service personnel are not discriminated against, especially when they set up a home?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is quite right, and as I said just now we had a meeting at DCLG just a couple of hours ago. We are determined that armed forces personnel, be they serving or just leaving the services, which is often when they want to buy a house, are not discriminated against by mortgage providers or, indeed, by credit reference agencies.

Dan Jarvis: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that legislation that protects reservists’ employment is red tape, or does he agree with me that scrapping it would jeopardise recruitment and morale? Will he therefore guarantee to protect it?

Liam Fox: I am very grateful to be able to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House personally, and I look forward to the expertise that he will bring to Defence questions. He will be aware that we are undertaking a very detailed review of reservists, not just the number and structure of the reserves, but the framework within which they operate, including for example the issues relating to employment, so that this country can make proper use of our reserves and maximise the benefit that they can bring to the armed forces, as happens already in many other countries.

Aidan Burley: Does my right hon. Friend share my recognition of the critical importance of defence diplomacy to UK interests around the world? Will he update the House on what progress he has made on making amends for the decade of Labour neglect in this area?

Gerald Howarth: I can assure my hon. Friend that since taking office we have set a new and vigorous pace to make up for the deficiencies of the previous Labour Administration. As my 1924 map of the British empire should remind everybody, the United Kingdom enjoys extensive historical ties with a large number of countries, giving us an unrivalled position. It is our policy to build on that strength through defence diplomacy, and we are doing so.

Linda Riordan: The original White Paper for the Trident replacement programme estimated a figure of £11 billion to £14 billion in 2006 prices, but in a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), the Minister stated that
	“the combined cost of the Concept Phase, totalling approximately £900 million, and the Assessment Phase, totalling approximately £3 billion at outturn prices is consistent with the departmental guidance that programmes should spend approximately 15% of the total costs before Main Gate.”
	It appears that this would put the cost of the whole programme at £26 billion. Will he confirm that that is an accurate projection?

Peter Luff: As I previously explained in an Adjournment debate, all the costs that we are using are entirely consistent with the original projections. I will be delighted to spend some time with the hon. Lady explaining to her in detail exactly why that is the case.

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me regarding the restructuring of the provision of elementary flying training at RAF Church Fenton. What plans does the MOD have for the future of Church Fenton?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that in order to rebalance flying training in the light of the new requirements, there will be no further intake of elementary flying training students at RAF Church Fenton. That is because the requirement is reduced from 155 to 105 pilots a year, and the last course, which is currently under way, completes in August. I understand that that will create considerable concerns for local people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. No decisions have yet been taken about the future of RAF Church Fenton, although the Yorkshire university air squadron, which incorporates No. 9 Air Experience Flight, will continue to use the station, and it will continue to act as a relief landing ground for RAF Linton-on-Ouse.

Alison Seabeck: Post the very welcome announcement on the future base porting of the Type 23 frigates, will the Minister—I am sure he will forgive me for not letting the paint dry on this one—tell us at what stage are the strategic discussions about the future of the Type 26?

Gerald Howarth: I was very pleased to confirm, on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), that the seven Type 23s are to remain based at Plymouth. The Type 26 global combat ship is in the assessment phase at the moment, and we are working extremely hard to see whether we can build it in partnership with other nations. I cannot go into too much detail at the moment, because much of it is commercially sensitive, but I can assure the hon. Lady that as part of our defence diplomacy initiative, it appears to be going rather well.

Charlie Elphicke: So often the House focuses on our armed forces in theatre and in conflict, but is it not also important that we celebrate our armed forces at home? I hope that the House will forgive me if I celebrate in particular the work of the armed forces recently at the royal wedding, where they were so brilliantly turned out.

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. After the service that so many have given on the front line, including in Afghanistan—some of those involved that day were involved on the front line in Afghanistan—it was very good, with the eyes of the world looking at us, that the contribution of the armed forces was able to be celebrated in that way and that they gave such a good account of themselves with everybody watching.

David Hanson: Has the Department reflected on the concerns of the Royal British Legion and the other place over the post of chief coroner? If so, what representations has it made to other Departments about the necessity of keeping the post?

Liam Fox: I share the concerns of the Royal British Legion and the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of this issue. I am having ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Justice to determine the best way to ensure that the skills required in this specialist area are available, that access is improved and that the distances that families have to travel to attend are minimised.

Bob Russell: Further to oral Question 16, does the Minister understand that soldiers who have returned recently from Afghanistan are living in family accommodation that is not up to the right standards, while across the road, former Army houses have been modernised at a cost of millions of pounds of public money? If the Government can find money for that side of the road, why can they not find it for our soldiers’ families?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have driven along that particular road and seen the situation. [ Interruption. ] I hear somebody shouting from a sedentary position, “It’s your Government!” Actually, the houses were built under the last Government, and the houses that have not been done up were not done up under the last Government. We are trying.

Sandra Osborne: What assessment have the Government made of the proposition put forward at the weekend by the Scottish National party, that in an independent Scotland, armed forces bases could be shared?

Liam Fox: It is tempting to make light of the nonsensical ideas that tend to come from the Scottish National party, but now that it is in such a strong political position in Scotland, we have to take these issues more seriously. It is extremely worrying that the SNP has previously had a posture that is anti-NATO and anti the nuclear defence of this country. It is time to engage in a serious debate on issues that ought to worry all those who believe in the United Kingdom, and in sound defence for the United Kingdom.

David Davis: In a television debate on the BBC on 6 April, the Minister for the Armed Forces asserted that this country did not have the capability to fly Harriers off aircraft carriers even before the defence review, and that we had not flown them off aircraft carriers since 2003. The truth is that they flew off Ark Royal as late as November 2010 in difficult sea conditions. I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the British public. Will he put the record straight now?

Nick Harvey: I am happy to correct what I said in that TV interview. I had thought that from the context it was clear that I was talking about flying in combat operations. The 2003 date was the last time that we had flown Harriers off carriers in combat operations. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Harriers continued literally to fly off carriers after that. Indeed, the nation watched the valedictory flights off Ark Royal back in December, as he said. I apologise for any confusion that my remarks may have caused.

Nick Smith: Will the Minister give an assessment of the financial cost of the conflict in Libya so far? Does he recognise reports which state that if the conflict lasts six months, the cost could reach £1 billion?

Peter Luff: I do not think it will get to that. This is necessarily a complex subject, and I cannot give a straightforward answer. There are costs that would be
	incurred anyhow by the armed forces operating in Libya. There are additional costs that are specific to the campaign. We would also have to establish the precise value of the assets deployed or used in the campaign. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the House will be informed in the usual way of the precise costs in the winter supplementary estimates.

Jane Ellison: Will Ministers update the House on the provision of mental health support for our service personnel, in particular those who have returned from theatre? As we know, such problems can take many years to emerge.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because we take it very seriously. She will know of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) entitled “Fighting Fit”, which is extremely valuable. We are taking forward its proposals. For example, there is already a helpline for those who have concerns, and I have phoned it to check that it works. We continue to be concerned and are working with Combat Stress to ensure that people who have concerns or who may have mental health problems can raise those issues with the authorities. Along with Combat Stress, we will ensure that they have the best possible care.

David Winnick: May I tell the Secretary of State that his earlier answer on Libya will cause a great deal of anxiety? Is it now the policy of the British Government, despite the denials, to take Gaddafi out by one means or another and bring about regime change? Would that not be totally outside Security Council resolution 1973?

Liam Fox: The policy of the Government is not regime change, which would be outside resolution 1973. It is Government policy, as it is NATO policy, to do everything possible to protect the civilian population, who would be considerably better off if Colonel Gaddafi and his regime were not there.

Peter Bone: When we were in opposition, we were critical of the former Government for not having enough helicopters. In the SDSR it was confirmed that we needed helicopters and planned to purchase them. Can the Minister confirm that the 14 Chinooks will now be ordered?

Peter Luff: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the position in relation to the Chinooks is exactly as was set out in the SDSR. Indeed, I will be visiting the Boeing production site very shortly to see the production line for myself.

Iain Wright: Given today’s reports in The Times, and following Ministers’ responses earlier this afternoon, it appears that the Secretary of State has some stark choices. He can restrict the capacity for British military capability and influence by cutting personnel and equipment still further, or he can secure a better deal from the Treasury. Which option does he prefer?

Liam Fox: It was always clear to those who followed these matters that following the SDSR, there were a number of very important second-order issues to address, such as the basing review, the reserves review and the changes made under the defence reform unit. It is also essential that we put the armed forces’ finances on a firm footing for the years beyond the current spending settlement, which runs from 2014-15 to 2020. That is the exercise upon which we are currently embarked, because we are determined that we will not get the defence budget into the shambles that it was in when we inherited it from Labour.

Jo Johnson: Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to welcome the news that India has just put the European Typhoon, made by BAE Systems, on a shortlist of just two for the hugely valuable multi-role combat aircraft tender, one of the biggest defence orders on the horizon anywhere in the world?

Peter Luff: The simple answer is yes. That is an extremely successful outcome, and we are delighted with it. A lot of effort has been expended by the four partner nations. I was at the Bangalore air show myself in February pursuing the cause, and I am delighted by the outcome. We must now pursue the campaign to a successful conclusion.

Katy Clark: What discussions has the Secretary of State had about the future servicing and storage of complex weapons systems? In particular, what assurances can he give about the future of Defence Munitions Beith, in Scotland, which stores such systems?

Liam Fox: I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise answer about what discussions have taken place lately on that subject. If she will forgive me, I will write to her with the details.

Julian Lewis: Have Ministers had a chance to consider the imaginative scheme to retain HMS Ark Royal for the nation as a heliport facility in conjunction with the Homes for Heroes project, bearing in mind that this year is the centenary of the first naval aviators being taught to fly and bearing in mind the importance of keeping aircraft carriers in the forefront of our minds until they resume their rightful place in this country’s armoury?

Liam Fox: I doubt whether my hon. Friend, or many other Members, would believe some of the suggestions that we have had for the future use of Ark Royal. Its use as a helipad is one of them, and although I find it particularly attractive in some ways, I am not sure whether the residents where it might be placed would think exactly the same. Its use is subject to a range of issues, not least planning considerations but also a range of financial ones. As ever, however, he makes a welcome and creative contribution to the debate.

John Woodcock: Is it true that the nuclear deterrent renewal will pass its initial gate this week? Why the delay over the past year?

Liam Fox: It has been essential to ensure that all the issues involved are agreed on, including, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware from his constituency interest, those to do with the safety of nuclear propulsion. I will make a statement to the House in the very near future.

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to anybody leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because we await with interest and anticipation the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.

Armed Forces Covenant

Liam Fox: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the armed forces covenant. The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it. The men and women of the three services, regulars and reservists, whether they are serving today or have done so in the past, their families and those who have lost a loved one in service, all deserve our support and respect. That obligation is encapsulated in the armed forces covenant.
	The ties between the nation, its Government, and its armed forces are not the product of rules and regulations, nor of political fashion. They are much deeper than that. They have endured for generations and they go to the heart of our national life. The armed forces covenant therefore does not need to be a long and detailed charter. It should be a simple and timeless statement of the moral obligation that we owe. We are therefore publishing today a new version of the covenant, written for the first time on a tri-service basis.
	The covenant is enduring, but it will mean different things at different times. The expectations of today’s servicemen and women are, rightly, different from those of their predecessors. Alongside the covenant we have published guidance on what we believe it means in today’s circumstances. It sets out a framework for how the members of the armed forces community can expect to be treated, and the aspirations and expectations that we believe are implicit in the covenant.
	The covenant and the guidance do not, however, describe what the Government are doing to put that into effect. That is why I am also publishing a paper, entitled “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, that sets out the practical measures we are taking to support the covenant. The paper brings together the commitments we have already made with the new measures that I am announcing today.
	A number of those measures take forward the ideas of Professor Hew Strachan, who led an independent taskforce on the covenant last year. I should like to record the Government’s thanks—and, I imagine, the Opposition’s thanks—for his extremely valuable work. Today, we are also publishing the Government’s full response to his report.
	One of Professor Strachan’s most important recommendations was the introduction of a community covenant. That will strengthen communities and build new links between them, local government and the armed forces. I can today announce that we are allocating up to £30 million over the next four years to support joint projects, at a local level, between the services or veterans groups and the wider community.
	The Armed Forces Bill, which the House will shortly have a further opportunity to consider, contains provision for an annual report on the armed forces covenant, which is designed to strengthen this House’s ability to scrutinise how we are fulfilling our obligations. In that way, the existence of the covenant is being recognised in statute for the first time, as promised by the Prime Minister last year.
	In deciding how best to recognise the covenant in law, the Government have had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand, we do not want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European Courts. On the other, we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the armed forces charities and the British public for our armed forces are met.
	We believe that a sensible way forward—one that will give the right kind of legal basis to the armed forces covenant for the first time in our history—is to enshrine the principles in law, provide a regular review of the policies that will make them a reality, ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that review through the annual report, and ensure that the report itself is widely informed, consultative and transparent. I believe that it is right for the Government to be held to account on delivering the principles underpinning the covenant by this House, and not by the European Courts. That is what our approach will ensure.
	I want to highlight two important aspects. First, the Government will set out on the face of the Armed Forces Bill the key principles that we believe underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. Ensuring that members of the armed forces community do not suffer disadvantage as a result of their service, and that where appropriate they receive special treatment, are at the heart of the armed forces covenant. I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments before Third Reading to require the Secretary of State to address those principles in preparing his report to Parliament, and to recognise the unique nature of service life.
	Secondly, I made clear to the House on 10 January our commitment to consult stakeholders on the annual report. We intend to consult widely in its preparation, and prior to laying it before the House will give external reference group members from outside Government the opportunity to comment on it. We will also publish any observations alongside it.
	We are working with the external reference group to update its terms of reference in line with its significant new role. The Government place great importance on maintaining our dialogue with bodies such as the service families federations and the major service and ex-service charities, which tell us what is happening on the ground, and I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution they make to the welfare of the armed forces community. In particular, I pay tribute to the contribution to this debate of the Royal British Legion, which continues to do such outstanding work in support of our armed forces.
	The armed forces covenant is not just about words; it is about actions. The men and women of our armed forces judge us by what we do to improve their lives and those of their families. Since taking office, the coalition Government have taken a series of important measures to rebuild the covenant. I shall mention just some of them: we have doubled the operational allowance; we have included service children in the pupil premium; we have introduced scholarships for the children of bereaved service families; and we have taken action to improve mental health care. These measures are especially impressive when set against the background of the dire economic situation in which the Government must operate as a result of the previous Government’s legacy.
	There is much still to do, however. I have always been clear that our commitment to rebuild the covenant is a journey that we are beginning, not something we can do overnight, and I believe that the British people understand that. We are continuing to take action, however, and I am today announcing additional measures that will tackle some of the problems experienced by serving personnel, their families and veterans. I have already mentioned the new community covenant grant scheme. However, we are also setting up a new fund of £3 million per year over and above the pupil premium arrangements to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. We will also launch a veterans card that will allow access to discounts and privileges.
	Furthermore, in helping injured personnel, we will guarantee that veterans suffering serious genital injuries have access to three cycles of IVF, wherever they live. We will also increase the rate of council tax relief for military personnel serving on operations overseas from 25% to 50%. In addition, between now and the summer recess, I expect there to be further announcements that will again underline that this is a priority across the whole of Government, and not just for Defence. Today Ministers are chairing a meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree ways to improve access to housing for our service people. The Health Secretary and I are looking forward to the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on how to improve further the supply of prosthetics for injured personnel. Also, we will consider how to ensure that the guaranteed income payments made under the armed forces compensation scheme are not required to be used to pay for social care provided by the public sector.
	The obligation we owe to our service men and women, set against the commitment and sacrifice that they make, is enormous. In the current financial climate we cannot do as much to honour that obligation, or do it as quickly, as we would like, but we can make clear the road on which we are embarked. Our understanding of the covenant will change over time, as will the way in which the Government and society meet it. The framework we have set out today provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that not only the Government but all of society can fully pay the enormous debt they owe to our armed forces, their families and our veterans. I commend it to the House.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for my advance sight of it. I would also like to place on record the Opposition’s appreciation of Professor Strachan and his sterling work.
	Today we are reminded of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make in defence of our country. They and their families are in all our hearts. Their actions overseas make Britain’s streets safer, and we not only honour them, but celebrate their immeasurable professionalism and bravery. In that context we support the headline measures announced in today’s statement, which can improve the well-being of service communities.
	However, in the military covenant it appears that the Government are doing the right thing for entirely the wrong reason. The Armed Forces Bill is currently going through Parliament, and was meant to be debated just
	last week. The Government faced concerted pressure in Parliament—along with enormous concern in the country—to amend the Bill and enshrine the military covenant in law. However, at short notice and in the face of almost certain defeat in Parliament, that was delayed so that Ministers could organise this retreat, which they are announcing today.
	As someone who has been open in saying that we should have gone further in the past to take the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics and put its principles in law, I congratulate all who played a part in the campaign. However, the Secretary of State today finds himself in the peculiar position of announcing a policy that he recently voted against. In February my colleagues and I tabled an Opposition day motion that called for
	“establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge”.
	The Secretary of State, his Front-Bench team and the entire Cabinet voted against the motion.
	The Minister responsible for veterans has been the principal covenant-denier. In February he said in Committee that to “write down” the covenant and
	“try to codify it by statute would be, frankly…surprising.”
	He continued:
	“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.” ––[Official  Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c.20-21.]
	Those were the words of Ministers in February. Although today’s announcement is welcome, it is not an action of conviction by the Government, but an act of submission to the parliamentary arithmetic that was building against them.
	In the few minutes that I have, let me turn to the other measures in today’s statement and strike a more bipartisan tone. Many of the announced measures appear to have their roots in the 2008 Command Paper on service personnel. We will want to look at the detail of today’s proposals. Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions and invite him to offer the House, and forces families, direct answers. Can he say what criteria will be used to identify those qualifying for council tax relief, and whether they will be the same as for those receiving the operational allowance? Will those currently serving in Libya or Afghanistan benefit from the policy?
	The announcement on concessionary travel is welcome. The Secretary of State will know that the Command Paper announced that the bus concession in England would be extended to include service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who were seriously injured. Can he share with the House whether his announcement today is the implementation of that policy, or whether it is an entirely new announcement?
	On housing, can the Secretary of State say whether today’s announcement is in addition to or supersedes the introduction by the previous Government in January last year of the shared equity armed forces home ownership scheme? How many forces families will benefit from the scheme announced today? He has said that a new veteran’s card will be introduced. We strongly welcome that, but again, the Minister responsible for veterans said in February that
	“the Government still have no intention of introducing a veterans card,”
	adding:
	“I do not think that a veterans ID card is necessary, even in relation to access to commercial discounts.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 17 February 2011; c. 102.]
	What role will the veterans card have if it is not to be used for commercial discounts? Will the Secretary of State say who will pay for the card and how much it will cost?
	My final specific question is to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he would consider exempting the seriously injured and war widows from the impact of recent pensions and benefits indexation changes, which will lead to enormous financial loss on the part of those who have given so much to our country. I am sure that the House and the British people would like to know his thoughts on that matter.
	I have asked a number of questions in response to direct announcements made today by the Secretary of State. We will support today’s announcement, but we will scrutinise it. We will want to know which of the announcements are genuinely new and involve new investment. However, the Government are entitled to widespread support on setting out to enshrine the military covenant properly in law. If they set out to achieve what they have announced today, the Opposition will strongly support them in that.

Liam Fox: I am grateful for the welcome—the basic welcome—that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Yes, it is perfectly true that the Opposition raised some of the issues in a recent debate—except that they would not define what they meant, nor would they tell us what rights they might create or how they would pay for them, yet they expected us to take them seriously. The reason why we have taken time to produce these reports and responses to detailed work is that we want to get the policies right and do the right thing for our armed forces, their families and their personnel.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the doubling of council tax relief. As I said, this will be 50% for personnel on eligible operations overseas. It will go to all those who currently get the 25% discount, which is a wider definition than that used for the operational allowance, but not to all those serving overseas—for example, in Germany. He also asked about the launching of the veterans card. It will be used to access commercial discounts or privileges, and we will consider how to expand it to include service families. It is linked to the relaunch of the defence discount scheme next year. It is not an ID card, for the reasons that we consistently gave in Committee and in the House.
	On indexation, when the change was made from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, none of us in the coalition Government wanted to see anyone in the public sector disadvantaged—but may I remind the Labour party that it left us with a £158 billion deficit, which has to be addressed? We will spend more on debt interest next year than on defence, the Foreign Office and aid put together. That is the scale of the problem, and it is the deficit deniers who are now on the Opposition Benches who put this country at risk. They had 13 years in office, yet they now have the audacity, after 12 months, to tell us that we are doing things at the eleventh hour. No credibility!

James Arbuthnot: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and Professor Strachan on his outstanding work. Does
	my right hon. Friend agree that members of the armed forces are the only people in the country who face competition between having enough ships, aeroplanes and bullets, and having decent accommodation and health care? What can we do about that competition?

Liam Fox: My right hon. Friend raises an important point, which we have grappled with in our approach to the covenant. The reason why equipment is not in the military covenant today is that the covenant for the welfare of our personnel involves a pact not just between the Government and the armed forces but between the whole nation and the armed forces. That includes local government, communities, charities and private individuals. The provision of the right equipment for our armed forces is a duty of the Government, and it should primarily be seen as the duty of the Government rather than of the wider national community. It is the Government who should properly be held to account for that.

Bob Ainsworth: The Secretary of State’s congratulations to the Royal British Legion are well deserved, because it was its campaign more than anything else that forced this most welcome retreat by the Government. He will know that what wound the Royal British Legion up more than anything else was the attempt to water down the involvement of the reference group in the monitoring system set up under the Command Paper on service personnel. He appears to be saying that that is now to be restored, and that that role will be fully implemented in the proposed reporting mechanism. Can he confirm that there is to be no watering down of the involvement of the reference group—the stakeholders and the service personnel charities, including the Royal British Legion itself—in the ongoing reporting on the covenant?

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking for clarification on that point, and I can give him this assurance, which, as he knows, I have given the House on a number of occasions. I have wanted to see a maximising of transparency on this, and I have therefore decided that the external reference group will be able to see the Secretary of State’s report in advance and comment on it, and that we will publish those comments and any other representations at the same time as we publish the report of the covenant to Parliament.

Menzies Campbell: I understand my right hon. Friend’s attempt to draw a distinction between Government and community obligation, but is not the Government’s responsibility also a moral one? For that reason, should we not recognise that the Government have a duty not to expose our armed forces to unnecessary risk, always to provide equipment that is fit for purpose, and to ensure that the operations that our men and women are obliged to take part in are always proportionate and legal?

Liam Fox: Legality has to be a foregone conclusion in this House if we are to take our appropriate place in the international family of civilised nations. As to the Government’s duty in sending our armed forces into combat, I would say that they have two clear duties: one is to ensure that we maximise the chance of success of their mission; the second is ensuring the minimum risk to them in carrying out that mission. Both those duties
	imply that the armed forces must be properly equipped for any task that any Government ever send them to carry out.

Gisela Stuart: I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about three cycles of IVF for the injured when they come back. He will know that that is virtually the first thing that the young men who return to the Queen Elizabeth hospital from Afghanistan will ask about. He also mentioned prosthetics. When it comes to rehabilitating soldiers, we are doing things with them—and doing them better—that are not yet happening in the NHS. What work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that what we learn from the treatment of our veterans can be translated back to the NHS and the wider population?

Liam Fox: The hon. Lady makes two valuable points. As regards the first, on IVF, it is bad enough that we often deny mobility and life chances to individuals, but to deny them the chance of producing another generation is worse, particularly when it is something that we can avoid. We should avoid it, and doing so sends out an important signal about the pastoral care that we are willing to give to our armed forces. Today’s announcement is a key one, which I think will be welcomed across the whole country.
	On the hon. Lady’s second point, I think many of us will celebrate the fact that the care we give our armed forces is so much better than others might receive in the NHS that parity is being demanded. That is not a bad position for a country to be in, in terms of the care it gives to service people. The work we are undertaking with the Department of Health will set out to see what lessons the NHS can learn from the treatment of those who have been injured in military action and I believe that that is a very proud moment for the country.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making his statement and on its contents, and Professor Hew Strachan on his excellent work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the “no disadvantage” enjoinder within the military covenant establishes a floor and not a ceiling, and that the men and women of our armed forces will particularly welcome the special provisions that he has announced even more than the commitment to establish the covenant and its principles on a firmer footing, which has so exercised the Opposition?

Liam Fox: May I take this opportunity—I hope on behalf of the whole House—to thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the work he has done, particularly on mental health and prosthetics, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned? I am sure that his words will be much appreciated. It is important to set out these two provisions whereby there is no disadvantage to our armed forces, their families or our veterans in pursuing a military career, and whereby, if necessary, the rest of society accepts that special measures might have to be taken to recompense our armed forces personnel for the risks that they are willing to take for the safety and security of the rest of us.

Brian H Donohoe: I have always believed that how people are treated is very important, but that how our armed forces are treated is of paramount importance. The Navy personnel in my constituency are concerned about their future with regard to air traffic control, and also HMS Gannet. What progress has been made on the contract, and will it be placed at Prestwick?

Liam Fox: I am afraid that I cannot make an announcement on that today, although the hon. Gentleman will know that it is part of our wider considerations. I appreciate that the delay brings uncertainty, but it is important to get the wider defence decisions correct overall. As soon as I have any news on HMS Gannet, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman is informed in the first instance.

Julian Brazier: On Thursday we had the homecoming parade of the Argylls—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland—who are based in my constituency. I met its last commanding officer, Colonel Richmond, who is at the end of a three-year recovery from a very severe wound to the leg. May I share with the Secretary of State the observation that he made, not on his own behalf but on behalf of others—that it really is crucial that we deliver on the commitment that wounded service personnel, for their subsequent treatment further down the line, do indeed get priority in NHS hospitals?

Liam Fox: If we are to honour the military covenant fully, it is essential for those who are injured in action to receive the acute care that they require—and I think the whole House would acknowledge that the level of acute care given to our armed forces personnel is of a world-beating standard—but there are often complaints about the follow-up care, chronic care, continuity of care and collocation of care that are also essential. We will need to take all those issues into account. Along with the Department of Health, we are trying to establish where we can collocate care so that individuals need not travel to six, seven or even eight places to receive the full range of care that the complexity of their injuries may require, as has happened in recent years.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State is aware of the interest in veterans’ affairs taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). He is attending a conference on the subject at present, and was unfortunately unable to be here for the statement.
	Many, if not all, of the issues involved in the covenant are devolved, and the re-elected Scottish National party Government have an excellent record of delivering for veterans in Scotland. Given the realities of devolution, why did it not even warrant a mention in the statement?

Liam Fox: When the hon. Gentleman reads the documents, he will see that there is ample mention of it. This involves all forms of government in the United Kingdom. I fully understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman and the interest that he normally shows in these matters. We want to work with the devolved Assemblies to ensure that provision that is based in England today is available to all service personnel, families and veterans throughout the United Kingdom. Individuals who serve
	under the Crown deserve to be treated equally, and we will want to work very closely with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments to ensure that equal benefits are received throughout the UK.
	One of the problems with the whole concept of putting rights into law is the potential for a constitutional clash between the Westminster Government and the devolved Governments, and we sought to avoid that. There was no basic disagreement with the RBL; it was simply a question of how we could best put what it wanted into law.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the historic step that the Government are taking today to honour the unique commitment that British service personnel offer our nation. However, may I press the Secretary of State to tell us what steps will be open to service personnel to redress the position when we fall short of the terms of the covenant?

Liam Fox: I hope that there will be no shortfall in our ability to honour the covenant, but the whole point of making the process as transparent as possible is to ensure that any future Government are fully exposed if they do not honour it. We are involving the external reference group to ensure that there is external pressure for that to happen, and to ensure that it is not simply a Whitehall-driven process. Ultimately, it will be for Members of Parliament in the first instance, representing their constituents in the armed forces, to detect whether, in their view, the Government have in any way fallen short of the standards that we have set ourselves today.

David Hamilton: For decades many members of the armed forces have felt betrayed by Governments of all colours, so this is not a party-political issue. I am glad that the Secretary of State is going to take a line from Midlothian council, which has always held priority housing for those who leave the armed forces. I welcome his conversion, and the fact that he has finally taken that need on board. However, may I raise the issue of post-traumatic stress, with which many of us are only just coming to terms? Would it not be helpful for everyone who leaves the armed forces to be given an annual check-up, all the way to the grave? Post-traumatic stress can arise five, 10, 15 or 20 years after the event.

Liam Fox: Again, I note the ingenuity of Members. The hon. Gentleman has raised two very good points.
	There are clearly instances of best practice from which we can learn in relation to access to public housing. When it comes to access to the private housing sector, one of the problems is an inability to acquire a mortgage. That applies particularly to those who have served overseas and have been out of the country for some time. We are examining ways of dealing with the problem, and the Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking into it at the moment.
	The issue of post-traumatic stress disorder is crucial. One reason why we have introduced routine mental health screening into the medical examinations of those about to leave the armed forces is to try to identify best those who may require additional follow-up. As scientific and medical evidence develops to help us with profiling, we may well be able to have programmes that allow
	follow-up for a longer time. We are working closely with the United States on building up a profiling picture. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that this may take some years to develop, at least in terms of the symptomatology, so we will need to look at ways of better predicting the effects, and identifying and following up individuals. We might have to identify them, because self-identification in mental illness is notoriously difficult.

Bob Stewart: I very much welcome the establishment of the military covenant in law. On 6 December, it will be 29 years since 33 soldiers in my company were wounded. We often tend to forget soldiers and servicemen and women who were wounded a long time ago. I hope that the military covenant in law will increase Government responsibility to care for those who were wounded, regardless of which war or conflict they served in.

Liam Fox: I agree with my hon. Friend, who, of course, has considerable experience in this area. First, I would echo the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about mental health care being one aspect of long-term care. The Government have given a high priority to that, because the invisible wounds of war are just as damaging as those that we can see. I do not put the blame on any one particular Government, but as a society we have been too slow to recognise that. We are increasingly recognising it now, however. Secondly, medical care will improve in certain areas. Prosthetics, for instance, have come a long way. Individuals are having to be reassessed in the NHS, given the new capabilities that prosthetics may bring and the new lease of life that they may give to individuals, including those with long-term injuries relating to service in the armed forces.

Nick Smith: Armed forces pensioners are disappointed that the Government have introduced CPI instead of RPI in relation to pension increases. Will the Secretary of State seek to include long-term housing costs as part of the pensioner deal for war widows and badly injured service personnel?

Liam Fox: As I have already said, changes in respect of RPI and CPI apply across the public sector. Many of us would like not to have to make such changes at all—we have no desire to do so—but we were forced to make them because of the financial situation that we inherited. I understand the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it does not matter how much Opposition Members mean it, because there is no money to do the things that they want. Do they propose that we raise more taxes or borrow more money to fill the hole? If the Labour party is serious, it will fulfil what it was asked to do by its own leadership, which is not to make any spending pledges whatsoever, unless agreed by the party’s leadership. So I ask, is the reversal of the CPI/RPI change now Labour policy?

Kris Hopkins: I welcome the statement and the leadership offered by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I recognise the contributions by groups such as my local British Legion, which has sought to secure the covenant through its very active campaign. Does the Secretary of State agree that the incorporation of the covenant in law begins to address
	the gross betrayal of our British forces and their families by the previous Labour Government, who sent troops into war without the right equipment?

Liam Fox: Some of those equipment issues from the past have been well rehearsed in the House and the House has decided where some of the blame lies. It is very important that we try to take today’s announcement in a non-partisan way and to build on it with a national consensus, because the public out there will welcome this irrespective of their politics and, indeed, even if they have no politics at all. The way in which this has been done, the compromise that we have reached on the complex difficulties that we face and the balance that we have tried to obtain will be welcomed by the service charities and the armed forces. I think that the whole country should take pride in the fact that we are, as a nation, putting a covenant between the whole nation and the armed forces into law in this way.

Paul Flynn: Recalling the second Iraq war and the Helmand incursion, should not the first line of the covenant read, “This Government will never put in deadly peril the lives of our armed services in conflicts that are avoidable or vainglorious”?

Liam Fox: I know well the hon. Gentleman’s reservations about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly about any conflict imaginable in any part of the globe. Our armed forces are primarily there to protect the security of this nation. We are very fortunate that we have people willing to volunteer—every one of them is a volunteer—to put life and limb at risk for our security. Governments do not lightly send our armed forces into combat; they are answerable for their actions in this House of Commons and to the wider electorate. We should be grateful that this country still has those who are willing to make those sacrifices for us.

Bernard Jenkin: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and look forward, with interest, to reading his proposals for improving the mental welfare services for ex-servicemen in this country. May I just ask him to make an awkward clarification? I am sure that he has an answer to this question. This military covenant strengthening is clearly intended to bring an uplift to the services available to our veterans and this will have to be funded from within the defence budget. Will the extra resources have to be found from within the existing defence budget or can he assure us that they will be provided by the nation as a whole, by the Exchequer?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend, again, makes an important point. Some of the costs will be met directly by the Treasury, for example those relating to council tax relief. Some money, such as the funding above the pupil premium, comes from the funding we earmarked within planning round 11, and some comes from other Departments, for example, the Department of Health. It is very important that we recognise that the military covenant is not just an issue that relates to the Government, the nation and the armed forces; it is also a cross-government effort, which does not begin and end inside the Ministry of Defence.

Chris Bryant: Can the Secretary of State clarify something? The council tax relief increase from 25% to 50% applies to second homes where service personnel live in MOD properties or in their first homes where they are living in other properties, but is that mandatory for all local authorities in England or does this apply in England, Wales and Scotland? Would it not be better to make the figure 100%, because it is up to the local authority to make that provision if it wants to, and some local authorities in Wales are now doing that?

Liam Fox: As I said, the increase will go to all those who currently get the 25% discount and they will now be eligible for the 50% rate. I am sure that some councils may wish to go further but, given the current financial environment, I doubt very much that they will be able to do so.

Claire Perry: Many of the details of the covenant will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, which is home to more than 10,500 serving armed forces personnel, including Sergeant Gavin Harvey, who two years ago lost substantially his entire lower body in a land mine incident. He is very concerned about the future supply of not only prosthetics, but wheelchairs and mobility aids. Can the Secretary of State assure me that that will be included in the review and can he tell us when we might expect to hear more about that later this year?

Liam Fox: I am aware of the individual mentioned by my hon. Friend. Some extraordinarily severe injuries have been sustained by our armed forces personnel and it is testament to the skill of the medical profession that many of our personnel have been able to survive their injuries. Those of us who have visited Selly Oak, for example, will have marvelled at the medical capabilities and at what they have been able to do. There is, however, another side to this medical skill, which means that more people are able to survive these injuries than previously would have been the case and there are more severe disabilities as a consequence than there would otherwise have been. Part of the work we have been doing not just with prosthetics but with wider health care is to tackle that. This is emerging science and the House must understand that this is cutting-edge medical science. We, along with other countries such as the United States, are pioneering medical techniques to enable those individuals to live as full a life as medical science makes possible.

John Woodcock: I am sure it was a slip in the heat of the moment, but in responding to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) during Question Time, the Secretary of State neglected to guarantee that reservists would get continuation of employment and that that would not be considered as red tape by the Government. May I give him another opportunity to do so?

Liam Fox: I was not evading the question; I said that it is part of the wider review of reservists. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) is a member of that review and we want to ensure that we consider all the issues relating to reserves—the basing, the functions,
	the funding, the relationship with the regular forces and so on—including how issues of employment are tackled. We have been very keen to look at the experience in this country and overseas and will make an announcement, I would have thought, before the summer recess.

Marcus Jones: I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. With about 2,800 veterans currently in UK prisons, to date support for our armed forces veterans has clearly been inadequate. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that enshrining the covenant in law will give our brave servicemen and women far more support both during and after their service, which will lead to far fewer of our brave veterans winding up in prison?

Liam Fox: As my hon. Friend knows, there is considerable debate about the numbers of the armed forces as a proportion of the prison population. I think we can say that for many of those who end up in prison, particularly those who have been homeless or who have been subject to drug and alcohol problems, it represents a failure of other systems to provide a suitable safety net. As a country, when we consider issues such as mental health, we need to ensure that we do not allow those who are potentially vulnerable to fail to be picked up by the services that might prevent them from ending up in an inappropriate institution such as prison.

Sandra Osborne: I am fortunate to have Combat Stress in my constituency. What funding mechanism will be used to distribute the £30 million and will it be open to charities such as Combat Stress to apply?

Liam Fox: It will. It will be settled by bids coming to the Ministry of Defence and any funding project that a community might undertake will be eligible for that. I am sure that the hon. Lady, knowing her, will be one of the first in the queue.

Simon Hughes: Tributes have rightly been given to the Royal British Legion, whose UK headquarters are in my constituency, for its fantastic campaign, which has led us to today. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the implication of his announcement on the covenant is that those leaving active service and leaving the services will be entitled thereafter to housing, if they do not have it, and to prompt and continuing health care, particularly mental health care, from the time that they are discharged?

Liam Fox: We cannot give guarantees on housing because the Government do not make direct provision of housing, but we will want to work with local authorities to ensure that the aspirations set out today are put forward in as practical a way as possible. On health care, I have made the point on innumerable occasions. I am pleased that so many points have been made about mental health care, because 10 years ago they would not have been made in this House of Commons; there is a shifting societal view of it. It is very important that we get timely health care. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), it is important that we try to profile, where we can, those who might be the most vulnerable so that we can give them the closest
	follow up. As is true in mental health generally, those who suffer from mental health problems might be the last to recognise that it is a problem and therefore be one of the last to present. We must try to ensure that we have a mechanism to identify them rather than depending purely on self-identification.

Richard Drax: As a former soldier, I fully support the military covenant, but does the Secretary of State have any doubts about whether enshrining even the principles in law could lead to bitter disputes in court with devastating consequences for the relationship between Government and the armed services?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes an important point that is key to this whole debate. As I said earlier, we had a duty to try to get a balance between, on the one hand, wanting to preserve the chain of command and, on the other, the legitimate interests of the wider service community, charities and the public. We did not, therefore, want to create a set of rights that could have had the armed forces tied up in European courts for ever, which would have been an utterly inappropriate use of their time and funding, but we did want to set out in the law of this land the principles about where there should be no disadvantage and where there should be special care, if required. It will be against those principles that future Secretaries of State for Defence will be judged and I think the balance is appropriate. We have looked at all the legal implications in great detail over a very long time and we believe that this is an appropriate balance to strike.

Dan Byles: As another former serving soldier, may I, too, warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, particularly the very clear message that this is about more than just the MOD? Does he agree that if we are going to make this work, it might be time to review the way in which other Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, manage the way in which they deal with soldiers, veterans and reservists?

Liam Fox: I must tell my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has made it very clear to all my Cabinet colleagues that the military covenant does not apply just to the Ministry of Defence, but is entirely a cross-departmental responsibility. All members of the Government—indeed, all Members of Parliament—have a duty to ensure that what we are putting in place today is applied equally across all parts of the United Kingdom and across all parts of government.

Conor Burns: It is generally accepted that more members of the Falklands campaign committed suicide after that campaign—

Kevan Jones: Not true.

Conor Burns: Or may have committed suicide after that campaign than died in active service. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—[ Interruption. ] These are very serious matters. Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the figures from Combat Stress indicating that further to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan,
	some 48,000 veterans may suffer from some form of mental health problem in the years ahead? May I say that his commitment today that the unseen scars of war will be treated as seriously as the physical ones is to be warmly welcomed?

Liam Fox: I used those figures myself in opposition, but may I say to my hon. Friend that there is dubiety about the actual numbers? However, let us cast that aside because the important point is that if any of those people who suffer from mental illness ultimately commit suicide, we have failed them. It is therefore very important to try to identify individuals who could be at risk, because the loss of someone’s life, at their own hand, after they have survived the rigours of combat is a tragedy not just for that individual but collectively for the country.

Julian Lewis: I do not wish to denigrate the legal profession as a whole, but does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a certain type of lawyer who specialises in persuading victims to bring court cases that otherwise might not, and indeed ought not, be brought? Is he satisfied that there will be enough safeguards to prevent that sort of abuse from happening as a result of putting into law the military covenant?

Liam Fox: I have a sister who is a doctor and a sister who is a lawyer. My father used to say we had the best of both worlds—the licence to steal and the licence to kill—but I have never taken such caricatures as necessarily being the honest truth. I will not be tempted down the road where my hon. Friend tries to tempt me, except to say that in striking a balance in the legislation, we have sought to minimise the risk of the kind of behaviour that he mentions, while trying to ensure that we honour our responsibilities and give a sound legal basis to the covenant that we are putting forward.

Bob Russell: The coalition Government can take pride in the fact that in our first year we have introduced legislation to enshrine in law the armed forces covenant. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for what it has done. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has told us that in Cabinet there is cross-departmental support. With that in mind, will he give me an assurance that the need for funding to improve and modernise the family accommodation of our brave service personnel will be put on the agenda?

Liam Fox: I am grateful to acknowledge the long-running support that my hon. Friend has given on these matters. He will be extremely pleased today that we have managed to achieve what we have. With regard to the speed at which we can make some of the improvements to accommodation, we are limited by budgetary constraints. We will want to go as quickly as we can. We fully recognise, as we have set out, what our responsibilities are. We also have, as I hate to point out, a wider responsibility to be fiscally conservative, to bring our budget back within affordability and to restore the nation’s economy to health, because that gives us the ability in the longer term to make the investments that we all want to see.

Robert Halfon: In Harlow recently, we had a special service to remember those fallen since the second world war, particularly in recent years. Their names are inscribed on the memorial. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the military covenant helps facilitate the remembrance of soldiers fallen since the second world war, and that some of the grant that he mentioned is used to help communities put those names on memorials throughout the country?

Liam Fox: I refer my hon. Friend to the community covenant grant that I mentioned. I will want to see whether we can widen the scope of that to include the sort of issue that he mentions. The remembrance of those who have given their lives for the security of this country should not be kept only within the generation in which it occurred. We should constantly remind every generation of it.

Robert Walter: Many thousands of both serving and retired military personnel and their families in my constituency will welcome today’s statement. Among the several thousand service men and women serving at Blandford Camp are a number of soldiers from Commonwealth countries who have enlisted in the British Army. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the military covenant includes soldiers and their families from Commonwealth countries?

Liam Fox: In so far as they have the same rights as anyone else to access public facilities, yes, it will. For some there are complex issues relating to nationality, but as I said, we are setting out today a cross-governmental arrangement. I want to consider some of the complex issues relating to those from Commonwealth countries. In particular, I want to ensure that we fully recognise that those who make the sacrifices share in the benefits.

John Glen: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he indicate his willingness to examine how compensation is paid to members of the armed forces who are injured? Currently, many of those who are badly injured and rightly receive many hundreds of thousands of pounds are at great risk of exploitation when inadequate or no financial advice is available on how to invest that money so that it is available in the years ahead. What relevance has today’s announcement for that?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. I will undertake to have some work begun in the Department to see where we are on that subject. It is obviously crucial for the long-term welfare of those who receive such payments that money is invested in a wise way that can maximise return over the longest period. He raises a crucial point and I will ensure that further work is done. I will report back to the House on that on a future occasion.

Christopher Pincher: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the practical measures to give effect to the armed forces covenant. Is he aware that such varied voices as those of the Adjutant-General, the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, the Second Sea Lord and Bryn Parry of Help for Heroes all made it clear in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee that they much prefer a flexible covenant of
	principles enshrined in law, rather than a set of prescriptive measures that might see our soldiers marching off to court as regularly as they march off to war? Does my right hon. Friend not think that their measured and sensible approach is the right one?

Liam Fox: Indeed I do; that is reflected in the balance we have set out today. There was something of a false debate between the Government and the service charities, especially the Royal British Legion, but they were always very clear that the outcome would be right for our armed forces. It was simply a debate about the best mechanism to achieve that. I think that we have achieved that balance properly in the proposals we have set out today. I hope that it will be widely welcomed by the service charities, which have given a great deal of impetus to the campaign and deserve credit for today’s outcome.

Andrew Stephenson: What the Secretary of State has said today will be welcomed by many, particularly those in the Nelson and district branch of the Royal British Legion, whom he met and discussed the matter with when he last visited Pendle. Of particular concern to many is how the Government can help servicemen and veterans with housing. I was wondering whether he could say more on that today.

Liam Fox: For obvious reasons, I well remember that visit to Pendle. As I have said in response to earlier questions, we are looking at how we can best improve access to housing, in the public sector by looking at best practice across the country in conjunction with local government, and by considering how we can remove some of the impediments that armed forces personnel might face in trying to get on to the housing ladder in the private sector. It is important that they can share in the prosperity of a property-owning democracy.

Mark Reckless: We have an unusually high proportion of veterans in the Medway towns, and one of our concerns is that too often they fall between the cracks when it comes to mental health services. I am delighted by what the Secretary of State has said about plans for proactive follow-up for cases of post-traumatic stress disorder; it might help those who might not otherwise present with symptoms. Is there more we can do to work with GPs to ensure that they consider whether someone coming into the surgery might be ex-forces and suffering from PTSD?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes a useful point. We have, of course, been trialling our new website and are looking at examinations at the point when personnel leave the armed forces. One issue that I failed to mention and ought to have done is the need to get better information to GPs. I remember practising as a GP and having absolutely no education—[ Interruption. ] I meant in the specific, not the generic. I remember that when I first worked with the armed forces as a doctor it came as a surprise to me how little specific training I had had on their particular needs. I hope that that is now being
	redressed by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, because if the doctors do not know what to look for, they are far more likely to miss the problems.

Peter Bone: Today has been a great day for parliamentary scrutiny. We had an Armed Forces Bill before Parliament. We had a campaign by the Royal British Legion. We had MPs on both sides of the House concerned about the issue. We had a Secretary of State and a Prime Minister who were willing to listen. This seems to me to be the way forward. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will accept the amendment to the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), or will he bring forward his own amendment?

Liam Fox: As I said in my statement, we will bring forward Government amendments to put into effect what I have set out in my statement.

Alun Cairns: The Secretary of State and his ministerial team should be congratulated, as should the Royal British Legion on its role, but, if an authority does not meet its obligations under today’s statement and the subsequent legislation, what consideration has the Secretary of State given to a swift and informal process at the most basic level to ensure consistency throughout the United Kingdom and redress?

Liam Fox: I understand why my hon. Friend makes the point that he does, but first it will be up to the Government to try to persuade the other elements of government—local government and the devolved Governments—to make the same provision as we want to set out in the covenant; and then, ultimately, it will be up to the public, as they are part of the covenant, to ensure that whatever the level of government, it lives up to its promises. I hope that one of the ways in which the British public will honour the covenant is by putting pressure on those who deliver services to ensure that they deliver them fairly, throughout the country and throughout government, for all service personnel, their families and veterans.

James Morris: I welcome the statement and, in particular, the comments on community-related issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that local authorities and community groups work with local legions to find appropriate solutions for our veterans?

Liam Fox: Again, that is one of the essential parts of the covenant. It is not just about what government does for the armed forces, but about what the nation does for our armed forces. That applies to central Government, to devolved Government, to local government, to no government at all, to charities and to the private sector. Everybody, including individuals, has a role to play, and I hope that if one thing unifies the House and the country it is that we are making a pact in law, and setting it out today in this House of Commons, between all of the country and the armed forces—something that never again should be broken.

Points of Order

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a recent debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), suggested that one way of solving the problems of Whiston hospital would be a merger with another trust. Given that the obvious trust for a merger is North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, that suggestion has caused widespread concern in my constituency about a possible loss of jobs and services from Warrington hospital. Is there any way in which you, Mr Speaker, can urge a Minister to come to the House and make a statement about their plans for health services in the area? So far, they have failed to address the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) raised about Whiston and are now causing real concern about the future of Warrington hospital.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I fear that she invests me with mystical powers that I do not possess. She is a very experienced and indefatigable Member, who will be well aware of the avenues open to her to pursue such matters—and of which I feel sure she will shortly take advantage.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement, “I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments”. He is completely and utterly delusional, because he was not announcing anything to the House; it was announced in the national newspapers for all and sundry to see on Saturday and on Sunday. Indeed, I understand that the Prime Minister was expressly going to make the announcement on Sunday, only to be beaten to it by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who on the record gave quotations to The Daily Telegraph. I understand that he was given the hairdryer treatment, but is it not time that you, Mr Speaker, gave the hairdryer treatment to Ministers who keep on doing this, week in, week out?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful that the House has had the opportunity to question Ministers on the statement made today. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I saw the newspapers myself over the weekend. I think that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but if a Minister from the Ministry of Defence, possibly the right hon. Gentleman to whom reference has just been made, wishes specifically to respond, he can do so.

Andrew Robathan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what was in the newspapers, he will discover that what he has said is not in fact in any way correct.

Mr Speaker: We must leave it there for today.

Jim Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, for one, certainly do believe you have mystical powers. May I seek your guidance in relation to the next item of business? I think the whole House is aware of the rules relating to sub judice when matters are put before the courts and are under consideration by them. The next item of business could easily become a matter for criminal investigation; indeed I, for one, believe that it should become one. Could you offer any guidance as to whether that imposes a similar constraint on what might be said in the debate on the next item?

Mr Speaker: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is, at this stage, a hypothetical matter, and it would be very unwise for the Speaker to speculate on a hypothetical situation. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so, and I will not. What I would say to him and to the House is that whether or not there are to be police inquiries into any particular matter is not a matter for the Chair. Unless a criminal charge has been brought, the matter is not sub judice. Today is the opportunity for the House to debate any matters covered by the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I hope that he found the response helpful.

Standards and Privileges

George Young: I beg to move,
	That this House—
	(1) approves the Fifteenth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 1023);
	(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 39; and
	(3) accordingly suspends Mr David Laws from the service of the House for a period of seven sitting days, beginning on Tuesday 7 June.
	It is always regrettable when the House finds it necessary to suspend an hon. Member, as it does today. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ report to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Chair of that Committee may catch your eye in a moment, Mr Speaker, so I will not rehearse them.
	This has been a lengthy inquiry, not least because the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) invited the commissioner to examine every aspect of his claims for additional costs allowance over an eight-year period. The commissioner has completed his inquiry as quickly as is consistent with the need for absolute rigour, and a complete chronology is set out at paragraphs 29 to 34 of his report. On behalf of the House, I would like to express our thanks to the Committee and to the commissioner and his team for their fair, diligent and impartial work in this case, and indeed in other cases. It is clear that the Committee has considered the commissioner’s findings carefully and has taken into account all the circumstances of the case in arriving at its recommendation of a seven-day suspension.
	The House will recall press speculation in the days before the report was published. The question of whether this was a result of premature disclosure of the Committee’s report and, if so, by whom, is a matter for the Committee itself to consider, and I understand that the Chair of the Committee has announced an inquiry into this.
	It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and I invite hon. Members to do so this afternoon.

Helen Jones: May I begin by echoing the thanks of the Leader of the House to the Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? The nature of the matters that they had to investigate required a detailed investigation by the commissioner and careful scrutiny by the Committee, and the whole House is grateful to them for their diligence.
	The matters under consideration that have led to the motion on today’s Order Paper are extremely serious ones that concern breaches of the rules over the very long term. No one should underestimate their seriousness. The commissioner found that from 2001 the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) submitted lodging agreements that gave a false impression of his relationship with his landlord and of their shared use of successive London properties. The commissioner found that he claimed higher rent for the use of two London properties
	than was justified either under the terms of the lodging agreement or as a reflection of the arrangement that he had for living with his partner in those properties.
	The commissioner also found that the right hon. Gentleman wrongly claimed for building work on the second property that should have been covered by the rent. In addition, he dealt with the separate matter of wrong claims for phone bills, which, as Members who have been here for some time will know, were not claimable under the additional costs allowance.
	I think it fair to remind the House that the commissioner reached his conclusions based on the standards expected at the time, and not under a retrospective reinterpretation of the rules. [ Interruption. ] A Member on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is not right, so perhaps I can clarify the matter for him. Claims for phone bills in Somerset and for a mobile phone were judged by the commissioner not to be claimable under the additional costs allowance, because the ACA related to a London property. Those were the rules at the time.
	In considering the report, the Committee made it clear that it agreed with the commissioner that from 2005 onwards the right hon. Gentleman’s main home was, as a matter of fact, in London, not in Somerset. The rules at the time made it clear that any hon. Member who was in doubt about which property they should declare as their main home should have sought advice. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do so.
	The Committee endorses many of the commissioner’s conclusions. It makes clear the seriousness of the breaches in agreeing with the commissioner’s conclusion that while the arrangement for the first property may have represented a good deal for the landlord, it did not represent a good or even a reasonable deal for the House. The Committee also makes it clear that the breaches in relation to the second property were even more serious, because the right hon. Gentleman had made a significant financial contribution to the purchase and upgrading of the property.
	The right hon. Gentleman has said that he was concerned to preserve his privacy. However, it has always been the rule of the House that when personal interests and the public interest conflict, matters should be resolved in favour of the public interest. Sadly, we therefore have to conclude that, because the breaches were serious and took place over a long period, the penalty that the Committee proposes of a suspension from the House is the right one. The Opposition therefore support the motion.

Frank Field: May I ask the Leader of the House two questions that arise from the report? First, how does the Committee on Standards and Privileges go about its business to ensure that one judgment is consistent with another? The second question relates to how long it takes for inquiries to be completed in the way that the Leader of the House has described.
	On the first question about equity between Members, we are not in a position to know how many Members from the previous Parliament will end up in court. I therefore do not wish to cite examples of Members from the previous Parliament whose record of claiming moneys from the public purse was, on the face of it, pretty appalling. However, so far, some of those Members
	have not even had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, let alone been the subject of a report of this nature, which is handed into the House for it to comment and vote on. Will the Leader of the House tell us something about how the Committee goes about its work to ensure that in judging one Member it bears in mind the behaviour of and the judgment it has come to on another Member?
	My second question relates to the length of time the inquiry has taken. Many Parliaments ago, I was asked to chair the Social Security Committee. One of our tasks was to look at the Maxwell theft of pension funds. We confronted layer upon layer of deceit. We completed our task, made our recommendations, suggested the shape of a new pensions Act, and were invited by the then Secretary of State to shape that pensions Act within a year—less time than it has taken to undertake this inquiry and report back to the House. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House addressed whether the speed, thoroughness and consistency of the commissioner’s work is appropriate.

Kevin Barron: I will pick up a couple of points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has just made, but I first wish to say something about the leaks that have occurred. There have been two types of leak in connection with the report. First, from Sunday 8 May onward, there has been a steady trickle of comment on the memorandum of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was, as is customary, sent to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) for his comments as well as to Committee members and to the Attorney-General, whom Standing Orders make our adviser. My first impression was that that comment could well have been based on informed speculation, but I no longer hold that view, because on Wednesday morning the Committee’s recommendation was leaked to the media. We immediately instigated a leak inquiry, and it is not appropriate to say more at this stage, as that inquiry is now ongoing.
	I will pick up two issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. One is the length of time taken. He will see from reading the report that it goes far wider than the allegations that were made against the right hon. Member for Yeovil in the media last May, and I suspect that that was one reason for the time taken. However, I say to my right hon. Friend that the timing is wholly in the hands of the commissioner, who reports to the Committee and publishes a memorandum when he is ready to do so. The evidence that he takes is entirely a matter for him.
	The other issue that my right hon. Friend has mentioned concerns the comparison of one case with another. I will mention in my speech the circumstances of this particular case and why we have come to the recommendations before the House. I have not commented on the matter before, because I believe it is for the House to judge, not the media or commentators. The extent of reporting of what the commissioner and the Committee would say, and what it would mean for the right hon. Member for Yeovil, has been unfortunate. It meant that the press have perhaps not looked as carefully as they might have done at what we actually said.
	The Committee has been attacked from one side for being too severe and from the other for being too soft. It would be complacent to say that we got it about right, but I wish to set out what the report says and why we said it. First, I urge those who say that the Committee has been too severe—many of them are in this House or in another place—to examine what the Committee actually found and the way in which that compares with other breaches.
	From 2006 onwards, the arrangements of the right hon. Member for Yeovil were simply and explicitly against the rules, because he rented from a partner. He has said that he did not regard his landlord as his partner for the purposes of the Green Book. In 2007, he gave his landlord £99,000, which was a free gift but which was put towards the purchase of a London property that the two shared. He also contributed to building work. As the report states:
	“Mr Laws had made significant financial contributions to the purchase and upgrading of the property. Such commitments are unusual between landlord and tenant, or even between friends. In consequence he should have had no doubt that he and his landlord were ‘partners’ for the purposes of the Green Book.”

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will have seen the volume of appendices to the report, which includes evidence from Mr Laws such as a rental agreement, which states at item 5:
	“The Lodger will be responsible for any damages or breakages caused by him/her”.
	How could the claim of £2,000 for renovation work be covered by that? There is no other reference in any of the agreements to any contribution that the lodger should make to any major renovations of the property.

Kevin Barron: That is true. The commissioner commented on that claim in his memorandum, and it was taken into account when we came to make the recommendations that are before the House.
	The right hon. Member for Yeovil was in breach before the financial contributions that I have described, by wrongly claiming that his main home was in Somerset rather than in London. It is clear that he was not the only Member who designated the wrong property. When the pattern of nights spent at two properties were changing, it would be easy to assume that the main property was the one on which a mortgage was held. If that were the main issue in the period up to 2006, it might easily have been put right, but the problem was that the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct was designed to hide his real circumstances, which formed a pattern with his later breach of the rules.
	There has been a great deal of press comment on this case, much of it before the Committee reported. It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman saved the public money, and that that makes his conduct all right. It is certainly possible that other, proper arrangements might have been more expensive. Clearly, there could have been substantial claims against the Somerset property, but they were not made, so we cannot know precisely what would have been approved. We must judge the arrangements that were actually in place, not arrangements that might have been made. As the report says:
	“Mr Laws contends that the payments were lower than they would have been had he claimed on his Somerset home, or made other permissible arrangements. In our view, it is inappropriate to
	judge whether the claims on property A are appropriate by reference to potential payments on another property, which is not in fact claimed for.”

Andy Slaughter: The Committee has dealt with the false representation allegations—the appropriateness of the penalty, which hon. Members are here to judge, does not matter—but my submission is that it has not dealt adequately with the quantum of claim, other than by saying that the rent was above the market rent and that there were
	“contributions towards building repairs and maintenance”.
	The Committee and the commissioner did not go into the fact that the rent was up to 50% more than the market rent, or that sums of up to £100 a month were being charged for each of council tax, utilities, parking the car in the driveway, maintenance repairs and the purchase of capital equipment. Why has the Committee not dealt with those sums on aggregate? That is a huge amount of money for a lodger to pay to his landlord.

Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend may wish to comment on that further, but I wish to make my comments on behalf of the Committee.
	What is clear is that the rents charged to the public purse were excessive, and that charges were made for repairs that would not have been included in any normal rental arrangement. It is impossible to tell exactly how much more was charged than should have been, but that is because of the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for secrecy.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Barron: No—I shall just carry on for a few minutes, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	The commissioner’s report suggests that the public purse was overcharged by between £80 and £270 per month, even in comparison with assured shorthold tenancies. Property advisers considered that the rent in the right hon. Gentleman’s lodging agreement was between £209 and £370 a month higher than the market price.
	The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters say that he acted to preserve his privacy. Extensive press briefings suggested that the breach would be somehow less blameworthy if that were the case, but the commissioner expressed his sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee recognised his motivation. However, there were other ways to preserve privacy. He could have refrained from claiming. Alternatively, he could have designated his main home properly, which would have meant that there would be no need to conceal receipts that might have identified his landlord.
	The right hon. Gentleman instead took the decision to preserve his privacy by concocting a rent agreement and, wherever possible, claiming below the receipts threshold. He told the commissioner:
	“After the receipts threshold changed I reduced my claims below the threshold.”
	Ultimately, as the report says, this case is about the fundamental principles of the code of conduct, which says, and has always said:
	“Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once…in favour of the public interest.”
	As the Committee said:
	“We consider the rental agreements submitted between 2003 and 2008 were misleading and designed to conceal the nature of the relationship. They prevented any examination of the arrangements that in fact pertained over the entire period.”
	That is why this case is worse than many others in which the commissioner has found there has been a breach of the rules of the additional costs allowance. In many of those cases, the Members concerned had consulted the department of finance and administration, and in some cases both the department and independent valuers, so there was no intention to deceive. In one case, the Member’s circumstances changed, so that arrangements that were expected to be temporary lasted longer than expected.
	In contrast, the case before us involved a deliberate attempt to conceal the Member’s real living arrangements that continued for many years. It is clear that he recognised the potential conflict between the public interest and his private interest. By omitting to seek advice, however, he made himself the sole judge of whether that conflict was properly resolved. It was inappropriate for him to be judge and jury in his own case. As the commissioner commented, it can never be acceptable to submit misleading documents to those charged with overseeing public finances. As this case shows, the right hon. Member’s desire for secrecy led him to act in a way that was not compatible with the standards expected of an MP. Whatever the motive, I do not think that is acceptable.
	Now I will address the concerns of those who think that we have been too lenient. Since the Committee reported, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has asked the police to investigate. There is a protocol between the police, the commissioner and the Committee providing for liaison between the commissioner and the police, if either of them has concerns. The police will not comment on individual investigations, and the commissioner is also understandably reluctant to comment on such matters, even to the Committee. However, the fact that the commissioner has reported to us suggests the Member’s behaviour is unlikely to have been criminal.
	I have already explained why we felt this case was more serious than others, but there were mitigating factors. As we stated in the report:
	“Not only has Mr Laws already resigned from the Cabinet, his behaviour since May 2010 has been exemplary. He quickly referred himself to the Commissioner, has already repaid allowances from July 2006 in full, and has cooperated fully with the Commissioner’s investigation. This behaviour has influenced our recommendation.”

Jim Dowd: The Committee said that the right hon. Member’s behaviour had been exemplary since the matter became public knowledge, and the commissioner himself, in paragraph 324 of his report, stated that it was to his
	“considerable and personal credit that, when his living arrangements came to public attention”
	he referred himself. Did the Committee calculate what he might have done had it not come to public attention?

Kevin Barron: No, it did not.
	The repayment was one of the mitigating circumstances. The voluntary payments went further than the circumstances at the time required. The outstanding amount related to rent that might or might not have
	been over-claimed and not to expenses claims that were wholly wrongly based, as in other cases that sadly have come before the House. As in other cases where Members have over-claimed, we have clawed back the overpayment. Given the uncertainty over what a true comparator should be, we calculated the maximum overpayment, and it was only because it was within the amount that had been paid back, over and above housing claims, that we made no further recommendation.
	It has been suggested that recommending that the suspension should begin after the recess is part of a plot to reduce the right hon. Member’s fine. It was not put in, as one of the Sunday papers suggested, by political partisans on the Committee. The Committee considered carefully and decided that a suspension of seven days was appropriate. It would have been arbitrary and unfair to have extended the suspension simply because a recess fell during the period. In 2007, the Committee recommended that George Galloway’s suspension should start after the summer recess for precisely the same reasons. In that case, he got himself named in the House and suspended in the last week of sitting, so he lost his salary for the entire summer recess plus the 18 days that the Committee recommended. In this case, we felt that it would have been wrong to have started the suspension today—if that is what the House agrees—because we knew that we are entering a short recess. It would have been unfair and resulted in a longer suspension than the one recommended in our report. If the motion is agreed to, approximately £1,500 of salary will be withheld as a result of the right hon. Member’s suspension. I recommend the report to the House.

Jim Dowd: I will not detain the House too long. I realise that we have immensely important business to discuss later, and we should get on to it as soon as possible. However, this matter is not unimportant. Judging from the number of Members seeking to take part in the debate on the report, I fear that it would otherwise have slipped quietly into parliamentary history. We have realised over the past few years just how tainted this House’s reputation has become vis-à-vis not just the conduct of some Members, but how the way in which we deal with them is perceived.
	I do not want to go into extreme detail about what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has done—or not. The commissioner has conducted a characteristically scrupulous and systematic investigation of the events, and the Committee and all its members have followed in the same vein. I will not seek to divide the House on the recommendation, which I am sure will be agreed. However, I fear that the way in which the case has been dealt with and the conclusion that the Committee has presented create the danger of emphasising the idea that, superficially at least, there is one rule for some Members of this House and other rules for others. Some are taken before the courts—and, indeed, imprisoned—for their conduct; some get barely a slap across the wrist; and others escape scot-free.
	I accept that the speculation around this case is nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman personally, but so much of the comment outside this place—I
	accept, too, that neither this House nor any Member is responsible for such comment—is about how much time he should serve not before he is brought before the courts or sent to prison, but before he is brought back into the Cabinet. That changes the aspect and the proportion of this case entirely. The report makes it plain that there has been a systematic, calculated and flagrant pattern of behaviour by the right hon. Gentleman, which, describe it as we might—deceit, deception, fraud—amounts to dishonesty. If this House is to rebuild its reputation we need not only procedures that are, to quote an oft-repeated phrase in the report, “above reproach”, but systems that are seen to treat each and every Member of this House in the same fashion. I do not think that we have that at the moment—I do not criticise the report; I am sure that we will pass it and move on—but it is for the authorities and the Committees in this House to ensure that one simple procedure applies to everybody.
	As the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), has said, this matter is now under investigation by the police because somebody has referred it. [ Interruption. ] I am told that he did not say that, in which case, we need to refer it. However, it is equally true that in other cases, the police have not waited for a referral for matters to be investigated, but have taken it upon themselves to investigate whether there was any criminal or corrupt element in Members’ behaviour. Indeed, matters that for a while fell within the purview of the commissioner were passed on, because the police had commissioned investigations into whether criminality and wrongdoing had taken place. There are those who have said that Members found guilty of serious wrongdoing should resign and leave this House, triggering a by-election—so much so, indeed, that the current Deputy Prime Minister said in his first address to the Liberal party conference that he wanted to add a “Derek Conway” clause.

Mr Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, made a passing reference—it was not, if I remember correctly, an evaluative one—to the police. Of course the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make clear to the House his view about the merits or demerits of the report and its recommendations. However, I urge the House to focus on the specifics of this report alone and not to engage in what might be called a Second Reading debate about the differential treatment of particular cases, and we certainly cannot get into a general discussion about whether or when the police are involved.

Jim Dowd: I accept that, Mr Speaker, and I will abide by your ruling. I asked for your guidance before the debate, because I fear that the niceties and technicalities of parliamentary procedure might reduce common sense to zero in this case, and that the public at large will not understand the import of events.
	I accept the report, but I still think that we need a procedure that is open and that has clear stages, regardless of whether the matter in question is in the hands of the House authorities, of Members’ Committees or of officials, or of whether it has entered the domain of a public investigation. We have not got the balance right in the report not because of any failing by the Committee, but because our procedures are still ineffective. We have
	tried to overhaul the expenses system, which was the genesis of this case, but I do not believe that we have got our administrative arrangements right in this House. The Committee continues to do a good job, as does the commissioner, but we must concentrate on creating a system that not only treats everyone fairly and equally but that is seen to do so.

Clive Efford: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I have concerns about the question that the report raises of consistency in dealing with individual cases. It would be wrong if we did not raise these matters on the Floor of the House, because the concerns—certainly those of Labour Members—about how these reports are dealt with must be addressed if we are to deal with similar issues in the future. I make no criticism of the Committee, the commissioner or anyone else.
	The conclusion was reached that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) had behaved in an exemplary fashion since being placed under investigation, but I hope that any Member of this House would behave in that way and co-operate fully in such circumstances. Having spoken to some hon. Members who have been under investigation, I received the impression that they did exactly that.
	I have one or two questions about consistency, which is all that I am bothered about. I understand that at least one case went to the Committee with the recommendation that it be referred to the Metropolitan police. What criteria were used to reach that judgment? I do not understand that, and I want to understand, because I am concerned about how these reports are written and how different Members are dealt with. What criteria does the commissioner use when he decides whether a case should go to the Metropolitan police?
	Also, how many Members have claimed expenses without submitting receipts up to the £250 limit? I understand that some Members who have been investigated by the Metropolitan police and taken to court have been prosecuted for breaching that rule. How many of them, when found to be in breach of that rule by the commissioner, have been allowed to pay the money back?

Kevan Jones: The report states that Mr Laws stopped claiming when the rules relating to the maximum amount changed. Did my hon. Friend find it strange that the reason he gave for not putting in receipts was to disguise this relationship with his landlord, even though the landlord’s name was on the tenancy agreement?

Clive Efford: I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but if he will forgive me, I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the case against the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The concerns that the report has raised for me are general ones about how we should deal with everyone who comes under investigation, because, let us face it, any of us could come under investigation if someone made a complaint against us, and we would all want to be dealt with under the same rules.
	Who has been allowed to pay back money and on what criteria? On what criteria have they been referred to the Metropolitan police, and on what criteria have they been dealt with by the Committee and had a penalty imposed on them, as recommended to us today? Does the fact that Members offer to pay the money back make a difference? This report refers to the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil paid money back, which seems to have been taken in his favour. Have other Members made such offers and, if so, has that affected how they have been dealt with?
	I have read the report, and I have highlighted several passages that appear to be inconsistent. I find it difficult to understand, for example, how someone can be a lodger in a house to which they have contributed £100,000 for its purchase and can then state to the Committee that they have no financial interest in that house and that the financial interests of the landlord and the lodger are completely separate. I find that sort of thing very confusing and very inconsistent, and I want to know what criteria are being applied to MPs when these matters come before the commissioner and the Committee. There are serious inconsistencies in what is happening here, and I believe that they are worthy of further investigation.
	Question put and agreed  to .

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

William Hague: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	Our security and prosperity in Britain are indivisible from those of other countries. We cannot seal ourselves off from dangers in other countries or prosper fully alone, and it is against our values—as, indeed, it is against our interests—to stand by while conflict and instability develop. That has been shown to be true time and again in the regions that we are debating today.
	Britain could not turn a blind eye when Colonel Gaddafi turned his forces against innocent civilians in Libya, shelling crowds of peaceful protesters and even hospitals crammed with victims, and launching a ferocious campaign of arbitrary detentions, torture and summary executions. This is a country on Europe’s southern edge, and a regime that threatened to “exterminate like rats” the people who had risen against it. The Arab League clearly called for help and intervention, which is one of the reasons why we have taken a strong lead in calling for, securing and implementing UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. Other reasons include the effect on Libya’s neighbours and the consequences for migration, terrorism and our own national interest if a pariah state had emerged in north Africa. Our action in Libya has a compelling legal and moral basis, strong regional and international support and a clear objective, and it continues to make progress.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State is aware that a great many people view it as very important that this has been a UN-mandated mission from the start. Will he update us on developments within the United Nations to ensure the maximum protection for civilians in Libya and to bring hostilities to the earliest possible end?

William Hague: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The fact that we are acting on a United Nations resolution made an enormous difference to the scale of the vote in this House in favour of the action we have taken and, of course, to the maintenance of international support. The UN Secretary-General attended the London conference that I hosted at the end of March and a meeting of the contact group. The UN continues to be represented at those contract groups. The UN special envoy, Mr al-Khatib, visited Tripoli yesterday, and we are waiting to hear what he found on that visit. The UN remains fully engaged and has offered to lead the stabilisation effort that will follow the conflict in Libya; support across the UN for the implementation of the resolutions remains very strong.

John Baron: There is evidence that NATO’s insistence that Gaddafi be removed is prolonging the civil war, and that civilian casualties are mounting as a result. Would the Foreign Secretary consider asking a third party—someone independent, such as Kofi Annan—to mediate, without
	preconditions, for the purpose of a desperately needed ceasefire, if this is after all an intervention based on humanitarian need?

William Hague: The United Nations envoy to whom I referred is such a third party, and he has just been to Tripoli. Other third parties have made efforts as well, some of them on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend. A high-level African Union delegation visited Tripoli, without the insistence that the Libyan opposition and we have on the departure of Gaddafi, but that did not lead to a successful mediation. Indeed, however one looks at it, it is impossible to see a peaceful or viable future for Libya without the departure of Gaddafi.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made at the weekend by the Chief of the Defence Staff about increasing the number of targets that we can hit, with specific reference to infrastructure? What discussions has he had with NATO colleagues about the apparent change of focus to regime change rather than the protection of civilians?

William Hague: I do agree with the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but they did not relate to regime change; they related to implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. It will be evident to the House that over the last few weeks the regime forces have tried to adapt to what we have done to implement the resolutions. They have made themselves look like the forces of the other side, and have fought in a more asymmetric way. In such circumstances it is legitimate for NATO to increase the proportion of targets that are the command and control systems of the regime forces who are harassing and threatening the civilian population. That is what the Chief of the Defence Staff was referring to.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will take a couple more interventions, and then make some progress.

Simon Hughes: The Foreign Secretary will, of course, appreciate that there is a desire for conflict resolution that will lead to a democratic opportunity for Libya. Will he accept from one who represents many people from north Africa, and many from the Arab and Muslim world, that the intervention that we made is extremely respected and appreciated by those communities here? They want us to continue to uphold the transformation in the Arab world to more democratic countries, because one of their reasons for being here is their inability to exercise their freedoms fully in the countries from which they have come.

William Hague: That is absolutely true. We responded to the call from the Arab League, and I discussed the situation in Cairo two weeks ago with its secretary-general, who remains supportive of what we are doing. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, that is representative of opinion not just across the region but among many people in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will take just one more intervention for the moment, but I am not leaving the subject of Libya for a while.

Mike Gapes: On previous occasions the Foreign Secretary has told us that the Attorney-General is giving advice to the Cabinet. Can he assure us that if there is an increase in the scope and range of the targets that we will hit, that advice will be made available to the House?

William Hague: I cannot give an assurance that we will provide a running commentary on legal advice, but I can give the assurance that the Attorney-General is always included in such discussions. He is always included in the decisions about targeting, and indeed in our general discussions about policies. The National Security Council on Libya met earlier today to discuss the increased tempo of the military campaign, and the Attorney-General took part in that discussion. Retaining what we have had from the beginning—a clear legal authority to do what we are doing—is very important. However, although the Government can give it consideration, I cannot undertake to give a running commentary on legal advice.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will take one more intervention, from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but then I must make a bit of progress, or there will be too few other speakers.

Richard Ottaway: The Foreign Secretary said that General Richards had been referring to the command and control structure, not the infrastructure. It seems to be agreed that command and control is an acceptable target. However, General Richards said in The Sunday Telegraph that he
	“wanted the rules of engagement changed so that direct attacks can be launched against the infrastructure propping up Gaddafi's regime.”
	That suggests that he was calling for a change of policy, and I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary could say whether he has a legal opinion that would support that change of policy.

William Hague: That would, of course, have to be discussed with our colleagues, partners and other members of NATO, as all targeting is discussed in NATO. But certainly it is our opinion that it comes within the scope of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 that if particular items of infrastructure are particularly supporting the military effort and the regime’s effort to make war against civilians, those would also be legitimate targets.
	The Gaddafi regime is now isolated and on the defensive. It has lost control of large swathes of Libya already. The regime’s military capability has been significantly degraded and £12 billion of its assets have been frozen in this country alone. NATO has conducted more than 6,600 sorties and more than 2,600 strike sorties since 31 March, destroying ammunition stores, armoured and other vehicles and surface-to-air missile launchers, while at sea 20 ships are now patrolling the central Mediterranean under NATO command to enforce the arms embargo.
	Scores of senior figures have abandoned their positions in the regime, including Ministers, generals, ambassadors, bankers and senior officials. Many of these defectors are actively supporting the opposition national transitional council. We welcome the announcement today by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he has requested judges to issue arrest warrants for Colonel Gaddafi and two other members of the regime wanted for the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. This should leave the regime in no doubt that crimes will not go unpunished and that the reach of international justice will be long.

Denis MacShane: May I say that in recent weeks the Foreign Secretary has conducted his part of the campaign with exemplary skill and force? As the International Criminal Court seeks the arraignment of Colonel Gaddafi for all the things he has done, what difference is there between those and the terrible cruelty, killings and torture by President Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said in Defence questions an hour ago that he believed that Syria’s President should also be put before the International Criminal Court?

William Hague: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, unusually, paying me a compliment. There are important differences, of course, in the level of international support and concern about Syria. I spoke a moment ago about the importance of our legal and international authority. So far, the Arab League position on Libya has been different from its position on Syria. Our ability to pass a resolution at the United Nations Security Council is very different on Syria from what it is on Libya, so if we believe that it is important to operate with legal and international authority, we must recognise that we are in a different situation in respect of Syria than we are in respect of Libya. I will return to Syria in the course of my remarks.

Edward Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are worried about what the Chief of the Defence Staff said at the weekend, because he seemed to be implying that in order to resolve a stalemate that we ourselves have created, we should constantly widen the envelope of what we attack? We want a firm assurance that we will attack only military targets that directly target civilians, and that our mission is humanitarian and designed to achieve a ceasefire and peace.

William Hague: My hon. Friend can certainly be assured that we will stay within the scope of the UN resolution, with legal advice, but he must bear it in mind that as the situation changes, what is targeted and the methods necessary to achieve our objectives will sometimes have to change. It would not be effective to say that we are only ever going to target the same things. Many different parts of the apparatus of the regime in Libya that are engaged in prosecuting a war against its own civilians have not actually been targeted yet.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that there will be no change in the mission—no mission creep? A no-fly zone can be successful in preventing civilians from being
	massacred—that is why I voted for it—but what would the Government do if it became clear that the air raids have succeeded in preventing that and that Gaddafi is desisting from threatening to massacre whole swathes of his own people, but that he is staying in place? Would we then call off the campaign because the threat of massacre had been reduced to the point that it did not need to concern us any more, or would we say, “As long as Gaddafi is in place, the campaign goes on”? That is where we might find ourselves in legal difficulties?

William Hague: Of course it is open to Colonel Gaddafi to comply with resolution 1973, to end violence against civilians and to have a genuine ceasefire. President Obama and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the beginning what he would need to do in order to do that; he would need to disengage from battles in places such as Misrata, to cease using his forces against civilians who try to protest in Tripoli, and so on. So it is open to him to do this. It would certainly not bring to an end the enforcement of a no-fly zone, the arms embargo and so many parts of the UN resolution, but in that situation the position—the need to protect civilians from attack—would be different. However, Colonel Gaddafi does not do this, presumably because if he did he would no longer be able to maintain himself in power, as he relies entirely on force to keep himself in power. That is why the question of his being there and remaining in power is, in practical terms, intimately bound up with resolving the conflict.

Jeremy Corbyn: Any innocent person listening to the Foreign Secretary’s speech would assume that the whole policy that has been conducted by NATO, with the support of the UK, is one of regime change, and that they are just hiding under this fig leaf of its not being regime change. When does this become regime change in fact? Would he do the same in Bahrain, Syria or any other country? Clearly, that is the direction of travel at the moment.

William Hague: Those countries are all in different situations. I wish to discuss those different countries later, but Libya’s is the one case where we are dealing with a clear call from the Arab League and a United Nations Security Council resolution, and that makes it very different from all the other situations that we are dealing with. The hon. Gentleman should support the fact that Britain is acting on that basis, with that international authority. The purposes of our military action are exactly as set out in the resolution but, for the reasons that I have just been explaining, it is hard to see us achieving those objectives, or any peaceful solution being arrived at among the people of Libya, while Colonel Gaddafi remains in power. We have to recognise that, and it is why most of the world, including people across north Africa and in the Arab world, want him to go.
	This House and our country should be confident that time is not on the side of Gaddafi; it is on our side, provided that we continue to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure on his regime. The tempo of military operations, which some of my hon. Friends have been asking about, has increased significantly in recent weeks, and we are now targeting not just deployed military assets, but the fixed military command
	and control facilities which the regime uses to threaten the civilian population. That action is within the constraints of the Security Council resolutions, and we are increasing the regime’s diplomatic and economic isolation at the same time.
	At the contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May, which I attended, all members agreed to reject diplomatic emissaries from Tripoli unless the regime shows serious willingness to implement a real ceasefire. We also agreed to explore action to prevent the regime from exporting crude oil and importing refined products for non-humanitarian use, and to clamp down on states and entities supplying arms and mercenaries to the regime. We are also working with our partners to stop satellite or state support for the broadcasting of Libyan state television, and the whole House will welcome the Arab League’s decision yesterday to request a ban on Libyan state-owned TV from broadcasting on the Arabsat satellites. We also welcome the mediation role of the UN special envoy, as I have said.
	In parallel with that pressure, we are increasing our support for the Libyan national transitional council, which we regard at this moment as the legitimate representative of the people of Libya. In Rome, the contact group agreed terms of reference for a temporary financial mechanism that will aid the provision of basic services in eastern Libya, as well as efforts to stabilise its economy. The first meeting of the steering board for the mechanism is due to take place today in Doha, and up to $180 million has already been pledged by the Gulf states.
	The British Government were also one of the first to provide humanitarian support to Libya, including medical supplies for 30,000 people and basic necessities for more than 100,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will want to expand on this subject when he winds up the debate.

Sandra Osborne: On the subject of the national transitional council, on a recent visit to the US the Select Committee on Defence was told at a high level that we do not know who the rebels are. Is the Secretary of State confident that it is appropriate to give them official recognition when we do not really know the details of where they are coming from?

William Hague: We have not given them official recognition; we recognise states, not Governments. We recognise the state of Libya. We say for now—at this moment—that they are the legitimate representatives, as Gaddafi has lost legitimacy, and we have invited them to open an office but not an embassy here in London. We know a lot about who they are—after all, we have met a lot them. I have met their principal leaders and we have a diplomatic mission in Benghazi that is working with them daily. They have published their vision of a democratic Libya and, as I shall explain, have gone on to set out their own transition plan for Libya, which tells us quite a lot about what they intend.
	The hon. Lady brings me naturally to what I was going to say next. Last Thursday, during a visit to London by its chairman Abdul-Jalil, the Prime Minister invited the council to open a mission in London. That will enable closer consultation. We welcome the road map for a democratic transition published by the council.
	It pledges the establishment of an interim Government after the departure of Gaddafi and a ceasefire—an interim Government including council figures as well as technocratic figures from the regime—the convening of a national congress with balanced representation from across the country, the drafting of a new constitution and internationally supervised parliamentary and presidential elections within six months. Those are laudable objectives that show the right way forward, as proposed by the national council.
	The Prime Minister also announced new support for the protection of Libyan civilians, including communications equipment, bullet proof vests and uniforms for the civilian police authorities of the NTC as well as support to improve the public broadcasting capacity. That assistance is designed to help ensure that the NTC administers territory under its control to international standards. In the coming weeks we will also increase our diplomatic presence in Benghazi. We have appointed a permanent special representative to the national transitional council based there, and we are sending development specialists who will form the core of an international team to advise the council on longer-term planning.

Bob Ainsworth: Is the Foreign Secretary not glossing over the significance of what the Chief of the Defence Staff said? I think that the Chief of Defence Staff is worried about stalemate. We are doing enough to keep the operation going but not enough to finish it off, and we are turning our backs on the opportunities for negotiation, to the extent that they exist, yet we are not going far enough to finish this. He is worried about war and misery without end as well as ongoing cost and stretch. He is saying something different from the Government, is he not?

William Hague: No. I have called at successive meetings of the contact group and in this House for a steady intensification of the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime. We have always been clear that it would require intensification and the Chief of the Defence Staff is certainly talking about the next stage of that intensification. That is not at variance with what the Government have said. It might contain more detail than what we have said before, but it does not vary from the approach the Government have taken. We have always been clear that such intensification is necessary to avoid a stalemate, but we need diplomatic and economic, as well as military, intensification.
	We are doing all we can to implement the UN Security Council resolutions on Libya. We should be fortified by the knowledge that our action has already saved countless people from the risk of death, injury or certain repression. I hope the House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the armed forces and to British diplomats and aid workers on the ground in Libya. The contact group will meet again in Abu Dhabi in early June, a meeting that I will attend, and I will keep the House closely informed of developments. The Gaddafi regime’s efforts to cling to power are in stark contrast with the largely peaceful transition that has taken place in Libya’s neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia. Tunisia continues to lead the way in the transition to Arab democracy. Despite many complex challenges, a great deal of progress has been made since the revolution
	in January. A new broad-based interim Government including independent figures and opposition parties has been formed, media censorship has been removed, formerly banned parties have been legalised and an election date has been set. The challenge now is to ensure that reforms are fully implemented and that all arrangements are in place for free and fair elections. I spoke to Tunisia’s Foreign Minister last week to discuss those things. Through our Arab partnership initiative, we are helping to produce the first media code of conduct for Tunisia’s elections, to build domestic observation capacity for Assembly elections in July and to strengthen legislation protecting freedom of expression. Further British support for political and economic reform is being agreed and we are also working at the EU and with other international bodies to look at assistance for Tunisia as part of a broader approach to democratic reform in north Africa.
	I visited Cairo at the beginning of the month. Egypt has many challenges to overcome before democratic reform is assured, including the need to stabilise the economy and create confidence for investors. I met senior members of the transitional authorities and representatives from across the spectrum of groups of Egyptian activists who participated in the revolution. Such engagement is vital if we are to understand and influence decisions by such groups in the future. In my meetings with Field Marshal Tantawi and Prime Minister Sharaf, as well as welcoming the progress that has been made so far, I raised Britain’s concerns about the Egyptian authorities’ current use of military courts, rather than civil legal mechanisms, and about the rise of sectarian tensions in Egypt, which is gravely concerning.
	Violent clashes between Salafi Muslims and Coptic Christians left up to 15 dead and more than 250 injured in Cairo earlier this month. Peaceful demonstrations about those events were attacked by gunmen on Sunday and 78 people were injured. We condemn that violence and call on both sides to find a peaceful resolution to their differences in the spirit of the unity shown in Tahrir square. The rights of Christian minorities in Egypt and across the middle east must be protected and we welcome the fact that many in Egypt are clearly appalled by those actions. Many in the House will be deeply concerned if we begin to see in Egypt signs of the dreadful attacks against Christians or any other minorities that have taken place in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
	None of us should be under any illusion about the scale of the transition still required in Egypt. The success of the Arab spring will largely be judged on what happens in the Arab world’s largest nation. The UK is offering technical assistance ahead of crucial elections in September. Last week, we hosted the Egyptian team who are responsible for the elections and gave them an overview of the electoral process in Britain. We are also discussing what assistance Britain can offer through our Arab partnership initiative to strengthen political participation and the rule of law, including anti-corruption efforts, but the international community must rapidly accelerate its assistance to Egypt.
	We are arguing in the European Union, the United Nations, the G8 and international financial institutions for a transformative new relationship with the countries of the middle east and north Africa. We have put forward our proposals in Europe for a reformed
	neighbourhood policy that offers market access and trade in return for reform, leading eventually to a customs union and free trade area. We hope that the G8 summit in Deauville next week will mark the start of a new approach to the region and to co-ordinated and expanded financial assistance. Offering a new hand of friendship and a new partnership is the right response to the aspirations of the people in the region, but it is also manifestly in our own long-term interests. The response of Europe in particular must be as bold, ambitious and historic in its scale and nature as these events themselves.

Keith Vaz: I hope that the situation in Yemen will also be raised during those discussions because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a mass demonstration is planned for tomorrow at which thousands and thousands of people will be marching on the presidential palace. Ways in which we can help are through mediation, by trying to persuade the sides to come together, and by giving the financial assistance that is absolutely vital because Yemen is facing a humanitarian problem.

William Hague: I shall come to Yemen in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to keep a semblance of order to my remarks, but he is quite right to raise that important issue.
	The experiences of Egypt and Tunisia reveal an important lesson from the Arab spring—that an immense economic challenge goes hand in hand with the political opening up of those societies. Two other lessons should act as a warning in the region to those who might be tempted to think that legitimate aspirations can be ignored.
	The first is that demands for political and economic freedom will spread more widely and by themselves, not because western nations advocate these things, but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere. The second is that Governments who set their face against reform altogether are doomed to failure. Simply refusing to address legitimate grievances or attempting to stamp them out will fail. Reform is not a threat to stability; it is the guarantor of it over the long term. It is not credible or acceptable for any country in the region to repress now and suggest that reform will only follow later, nor is it sustainable to promise economic reform without steady political development.
	This is our message to Syria, alongside our utter condemnation of the violence. Only meaningful reform that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term. The alternative—ever more violent repression—simply stokes up anger and frustration that will spill over in the future. On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the European Union has already imposed a travel ban and assets freeze on 13 individuals in the Syrian regime, and on Friday we informed the Syrian ambassador to London that if the violence does not stop immediately, the EU will take further measures, including sanctions targeted at the highest levels of the Syrian Government.
	Alongside this action in the EU we are seeking a response from the UN Security Council in New York, where we are working to convince others that the
	Security Council must send an unequivocal message of condemnation of the situation and call for urgent political reform.

Malcolm Bruce: The Foreign Secretary is making a perfectly correct and robust case, but does he agree that the emergence of protest right across the middle east changes the dynamics of the middle east peace process and the mood of the Palestinians, and that we need to ensure that the international community secures a response and that they do not feel that they are stuck in a time warp when things are changing all around them?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is right. That is changing the dynamics and it is important for all to understand that this increases the urgency of the middle east peace process, rather than meaning that it can be put off. The remaining opportunity to breathe new life into it must now be taken. I shall say more about that in a moment.

Hywel Williams: What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to encourage Turkey to take a democratic lead in the region, which would also include ending the persecution of legitimately and democratically elected Kurdish politicians? That would give great succour to Kurdish people in Syria, who are the subject of murderous repression by their own Government.

William Hague: Turkey is taking a lead in the region, in particular in trying to persuade the Syrian authorities to go down the route of reform, rather than the route of repression. We very much welcome the highly active role—not yet a successful role, but a highly active role —played by the Turkish Government in that regard. Of course, we look to Turkey, particularly as an aspirant nation for membership of the European Union, always to set a strong example itself.
	While condemning so many things that have happened in some countries, we should welcome the fact that in some other countries of the Arab world Governments are setting out plans for reform. In March, the King of Morocco announced a package of reforms, including putting the national human rights body on an independent footing and constitutional changes that will be put to a referendum. Jordan has announced committees on national dialogue and constitutional and economic reform, and we look forward to those reforms being agreed and implemented.
	In Yemen, the economic, security and humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. More protesters were killed only last week by Government forces, in violence that the whole House will deplore. The United Kingdom supports the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative to resolve the deadlock, which requires the President to step aside and a new Government to be formed who include members of the Opposition. We are in close contact with the GCC about the progress of negotiations, we have supported those negotiations, and we are in close contact with the United States and our partners in Europe about our wider approach to the country.
	Instability in Yemen has serious implications for the terrorist threat from that country, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has demonstrated the intent and capability to attack western targets inside and outside
	Yemen. Britain and our allies are working around the clock to counter this threat and we will continue to do so. The arguments about the need for reform and dialogue apply to all countries in the region. Although each country is different, we will make the case to all that steps to reverse freedoms and curtail human rights are wrong and counter-productive.
	We welcome the announcement in Bahrain that the state of national emergency will be lifted on 1 June and look forward to this commitment being met. We remain very concerned by the restrictions on freedom of speech and the reports of human rights abuses, including the widespread arrest of political activists and the severe charges brought against a number of doctors and nurses by a Bahraini tribunal. The Government of Bahrain must meet their human rights obligations and uphold political freedom, dialogue, equal access to justice and the rule of law. We also call on opposition groups in Bahrain to be prepared to enter into genuine dialogue.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

William Hague: I have given way to the hon. Lady once already, but as she is the only representative of her party, I will give her a second go.

Caroline Lucas: That is very kind; I look forward to making many more interventions on that basis. Does the Secretary of State share the concern that Bahraini opposition activists will not receive fair trials and, if he does, does he think there is a role for the UK mission to send observers to witness those trials?

William Hague: We certainly expect and will demand fair trials, and I have discussed that situation with Bahrain’s Foreign Minister in recent weeks, so it is very clear where the UK stands. We will send observers as necessary. Our embassy in Bahrain has been highly active for years in raising human rights concerns there, before the recent trouble, and in maintaining contact with opposition groups and good relations with the Government. We will keep that going.
	Serious challenges also remain in Iraq. The formation of a national unity Government between Iraq’s major political blocs remains incomplete, the security situation is fragile and political tensions have risen. In recent months there have been a number of high-profile attacks and targeted assassinations by al-Qaeda and insurgent groups, but we judge the Iraqi security forces to have the necessary capabilities to prevent a wholesale return to violence. With its young democracy, oil reserves and economic potential, Iraq can become an important stabilising influence in the region and a key contributor to global energy security. Compromises must be made to end the stalemate and tackle the many grave problems the country faces.
	The Arab spring remains in its early stages, in my view, and has caused uncertainty as well as optimism, but the middle east peace process must not be allowed to become a victim of that uncertainty. Delay leaves a vacuum of leadership which can be exploited by extremists or lead to increased violence. We are deeply concerned by emerging reports that up to 17 people were killed and many more injured over the weekend in violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We call on all parties to exercise restraint and protect civilian life.
	The House will join me in paying tribute to the efforts of the UN special envoy, Senator Mitchell, who will step down from that position this week after two years of tireless efforts to restart talks. We believe that the parties must return to direct negotiations as soon as possible, on the basis of clear parameters for a two-state solution. We hope that the announcement of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas will lead to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace. President Abbas has reaffirmed his commitment to a negotiated two-state solution based on 1967 borders. A new Government have yet to be formed, but when that happens we will judge them by their actions and their readiness to work for peace.

David Burrowes: Today, when hon. Members from both sides of the House have joined in celebrating the 63rd anniversary of the independence of Israel, will the Foreign Secretary offer an assurance that the Government will not provide any support for organisations such as Hamas, which threatens not only Israel’s independence, but its very existence?

William Hague: We have not changed in any way our policy on Hamas. That is why I am making this statement about judging a future Palestinian Administration by their actions and readiness to act for peace.

John Woodcock: Further to that point, will the Foreign Secretary make clear the central importance that the Government place on the Quartet principles and state that no organisation, particularly Hamas in this instance, may genuinely be part of the peace process while it remains committed to Israel’s destruction?

William Hague: Securing peace in the middle east must of course be done on the basis of the Quartet principles, which is why we will judge any Palestinian Administration by the conditions I have set out. As I have often said, we look to Hamas to make concrete movement towards the Quartet principles, which remain of central importance.

David Winnick: I have lost count of the number of Foreign Secretaries who have told us that every effort would be made to bring about a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Time and again that promise has been made, and I am sure with every genuine wish that it should be brought about, but it has not been. The situation of the Palestinians remains precisely what it has been since the occupied territories were taken in 1967. Is there any possibility that the United States—to a large extent it is the United States alone that will decide this—will move more than it has done so far, which in fact has not been much?

William Hague: It is no discredit to my predecessors that they have worked hard on this, and it would be wrong to desist from doing so just because we have not been successful so far. I believe that President Obama will make a major speech this week on these matters, including the middle east peace process. The United States of course plays a central role in pushing this forward.

Gerald Kaufman: Could the Foreign Secretary explain how negotiations can take place and be successful in the new situation of
	a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which is exceptionally important, if Hamas is to be excluded in some way from peace making? Does he not remember Abba Eban, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, saying that one makes peace by talking to one’s enemies?

William Hague: In this situation the interlocutor for Israel remains President Abbas. He insists, I understand, that he is available to negotiate with Israel on the same basis as before, that the Government he has formed will be ready to do that and that Hamas will not have changed the Government’s policy. I hope that a return to negotiations will be possible, notwithstanding all the difficulties the House can see.

Stewart Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for being generous in giving way. On the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), does my right hon. Friend recognise the concern shared by many Members that until Hamas repudiates its stated position, which is that the state of Israel should not exist, it cannot come to the table? Furthermore, does he agree that unilateral declarations of statehood, rather than round-table discussions without conditions, are not the best way forward and that the latter are?

William Hague: Negotiations on statehood are certainly the best way forward, but it is when those negotiations get nowhere that discussions about unilateral recognition get going in the world. That has to be recognised by all concerned. Yes, it is of course important for any peace in the future that all concerned recognise Israel’s right to exist, forswear violence and recognise previous agreements.
	I am conscious that at this rate of progress mine might be the only speech in this debate and that I am yet to touch on Pakistan and Afghanistan, so I am going to be a little less generous in giving way and I will shorten what I was going to say about Iran.
	The same urgency must apply to our efforts to address Iran’s nuclear programme, which remains a vital international issue. Tackling Iranian nuclear proliferation will remain at the centre of our approach to the region. We are seeking to intensify, including through the EU, the impact of existing sanctions in order to slow down Iran’s acquisition of material and finance for its nuclear programme and press the Iranian Government to reconsider their position. The people of the middle east aspire to a better future. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to that future, as are the continued efforts of terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	No country has suffered more from the scourge of terrorism than Pakistan. In the 10 years since 9/11, more than 30,000 of its civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured, including the 80 people killed in a suicide attack last week. Osama bin Laden’s death is therefore a blow against the forces undermining the Pakistani state and an opportunity for Pakistan, working with Britain and its allies, to redouble the fight against violent extremism. Pakistan should certainly address the many serious questions surrounding bin Laden’s likely support network in Pakistan. We welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation,
	which must be credible and thorough, but it is right that we support the Government of Pakistan in their efforts to defeat terrorism. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in the UK and what happens in Pakistan directly affects us. As we help Pakistan today, we are also investing in our future security. The enhanced strategic dialogue that our Prime Minister launched with Pakistan last month strengthens our co-operation on many shared interests and supports that long-term goal.
	We want the people of Pakistan to know that the UK seeks a long-term partnership with Pakistan for generations ahead. British development support is helping to tackle inequalities in Pakistani society, to get more children into school and to build communities that are more resistant to radicalisation. Whatever its concerns about sovereignty, Pakistan should use the opportunity of bin Laden’s death to side unconditionally with all those aiming to defeat al-Qaeda, including Muslim countries. We hope that Pakistan will decide not to turn its back in any way on the west, but to take up the offer of partnership from us and the Americans and to use this moment in order to build long-term strategic partnerships.
	Neighbouring Afghanistan remains at the top of the Government’s priorities in foreign affairs.

Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very welcome report last week that the Prime Minister intends to make an announcement this month on the repatriation of 450 British troops—a report that gave great hope to the loved ones of those soldiers?

William Hague: I am coming on to Afghanistan, and I will talk briefly about troop levels, but I will leave any such announcement for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	We have received news in the past 24 hours—the hon. Gentleman’s remarks relate to this topic—of the death of a Royal Marine from 42 Commando Royal Marines, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to that officer and in expressing our sincere condolences to his family.
	Osama bin Laden’s death will not mean the end of the security threat posed by the insurgency, or of the need to build up the capacity of Afghans to take charge of their own affairs. We remain committed to building a stable and secure Afghanistan that is able to prevent international terrorist groups from operating from its territory. Bin Laden’s death presents a clear opportunity for the Taliban to break decisively from al-Qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process.
	I wish to spend the remaining few minutes of my speech—so that others can speak—updating the House on recent developments and on the Government’s overall strategy, treating these remarks as our quarterly report to Parliament on progress in Afghanistan. At the close of this debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will inform the House of development progress.
	The next four years in Afghanistan will be decisive. The Prime Minister has made it clear that by 2015 our troops will no longer have a combat role or be there in the numbers they are in now. President Karzai and the international security assistance force coalition have
	confirmed that, by then, Afghanistan will be in charge of its own security. That process of security transfer is already under way, and President Karzai announced in March the first group of provinces and districts where the transition will begin. Lashkar Gah district in Helmand is in that first group, confirming the progress that we have made in improving security in central Helmand. The National Security Council has approved our strategy that will support this transition over the next four years.
	The momentum of the insurgency has been halted and, in many areas, reversed. Afghan and ISAF forces are now working to consolidate gains, which are not yet irreversible, and levels of violence have been relatively low in recent months, although a little higher than in the same period last year. In April there were a number of insurgent attacks, including the barbaric assault on a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif and an attack on the Defence Ministry in Kabul, and there was the escape of a large number of insurgent detainees from prison in Kandahar. Those incidents underline the need to continue pursuing our counter-insurgency strategy and our efforts to build Afghan security capacity, but they should also be seen as of limited wider impact when placed in the context of the campaign. In early May, Taliban leaders announced the start of their spring offensive, and we must therefore be prepared for such attacks to continue.
	The UK’s overall military contribution is well over 10,000 troops. In task force Helmand’s area of operation, our focus is on maintaining momentum and retaining the tactical initiative in preparation for the end of the poppy harvest, when Helmand’s fighting-age males, many of whom have in previous years turned to the insurgency for employment, must be encouraged not to do so again. We keep our force levels under constant review, and some reductions this year may be possible, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), dependent upon conditions on the ground and the implementation of the security transition.
	If the transition of security responsibilities to the Afghans is to succeed and endure, we have to build up Afghan capacity, and we are making progress on that. Afghan security forces responded capably to the Taliban’s co-ordinated assault on Kandahar city on 7 May. The numbers in the Afghan security forces continue to grow ahead of schedule, but just as important are the improvements being made in their capability and professionalism.
	Some 95% of ISAF operations are conducted side by side with Afghan forces, and about 74% of Afghan national army kandaks and 75% of Afghan national police are now rated as effective with advisers or effective with assistance. Eleven out of 12 planned ANA branch schools are now open, teaching the soldiers the skills they will need to move from an infantry-centric force to a more self-supporting organisation.
	Literacy rates in the army continue to improve, with 80,000 members of the security forces having now completed a period of literacy training and a further 60,000 in training at any one time. The NATO training mission estimates that in nine months more than half the Afghan security force will have completed basic literacy training, compared with just 15% today.
	We continue to work with the Afghan Government and our international partners to support reconciliation in Afghanistan and to make progress towards a political
	settlement. We want a durable and inclusive settlement that respects the interests and rights of all Afghans. I agree with Secretary Clinton, who said on 18 February that we must intensify our efforts on a political process. We need to take advantage of military and civilian gains to make 2011 a year of reconciliation and transformation in Afghanistan. We will work with anyone who genuinely shares the goal of a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan that is not threatening to its neighbours and who are not threatened by it, and we look to the Bonn conference later this year as an important opportunity for progress.
	In all the countries and regions that I have discussed today, we have a strong national interest in both democracy and stability, and our country is playing a major role bilaterally through the European Union, the United Nations and NATO, including in Afghanistan, where we are the second largest contributor of international forces.
	This year already stands out as a momentous year in foreign affairs—one that not only gives rise to great optimism about the potential for greater economic and political freedom in a part of the world that has known little of either, but that generates risks to the United Kingdom which we will work to anticipate and address, working with our allies to protect our nation’s interests while standing up for the highest values of our society.

John Spellar: This debate certainly covers a vast number of countries of interest, but it does not include China, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, is visiting today, as he mentioned in last week’s exchanges. It is also unfortunate that so much other business has been put on today’s agenda, given what is clearly a timely, popular and well-supported debate.
	I accept that we are in somewhat uncharted territory, and we recognise the difficulty for the Government of making decisions in response to rapidly changing circumstances, but it is nevertheless necessary that those decisions are taken speedily and coherently and that they are implemented effectively. For Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s performance properly, it is important that the Government share their thinking and the evolution of their doctrine in assessing options and that they ensure a firm grip on delivery.
	I know that a considerable number of Members wish to speak, that they have an interest and considerable expertise in the subjects covered by the debate and that there is a time limit, so without more ado I will cover some, although not all, of the countries involved. Inevitably, given the dramatic death of Osama bin Laden, we must start with Afghanistan.
	At the outset, let me make it clear that we believe that the allied forces were right to go into Afghanistan in response to 9/11, and that the UN was right to set up ISAF with the following mandate, which we should remind ourselves of today:
	“Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law, including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,
	Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,
	Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
	Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement”.
	That mandate, in its essence, remains relevant today.
	The UK took the lead in the initial phase of ISAF, and our forces have played a prominent and—I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise this—distinguished role since then. They show great skill, courage and determination in their operations, and some have made the ultimate sacrifice, including the Royal Marines sergeant mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. Others have suffered serious injuries that will affect their whole lives, as was highlighted in the statement made earlier. Because my constituency is very close to Birmingham, I recently talked to a nurse there who works at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, who described how heartbreaking it is to see these once-fit young men who have desperate injuries but who remain enormously positive and resolute. We owe them a huge debt. The nation must honour the military covenant, and today’s statement is an important step in that process. I also join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to aid workers in Afghanistan, a number of whom have died in trying to bring help to the people of Afghanistan. They have shown enormous dedication and courage.
	We must look to the manner and timing of the handover of the governance of Afghanistan to the Afghan authorities, army and police. One of our key objectives was to prevent al-Qaeda from using Taliban-run Afghanistan as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks around the world. While Osama bin Laden’s death has not finished al-Qaeda, it has certainly dealt it a serious blow. It also confirms previous intelligence suggesting that nearly all of al-Qaeda has left Afghanistan. That probably means that Washington will start phased troop withdrawals in the next couple of months. We must be clear that the process is determined by the situation on the ground, not by the calendar, but also that it will start to happen shortly.
	It is clear that intense internal discussions are going on in Washington, and some elements of those discussions are starting to emerge. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week described as “fundamentally unsustainable” the US’s current expenditure of $10 billion a month on what he called a massive military operation with no end in sight. He made it clear that he was not advocating a “unilateral precipitous withdrawal”, but that the US ought to be working towards achieving what he described as the “smallest footprint possible”. The ranking Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, who also has huge experience on that committee, reinforced the message, saying:
	“The question before us is whether Afghanistan is important enough to justify the lives and massive resources that are being spent there, especially given our nation’s debt crisis.”
	The atmosphere in Washington shows that people feel that the death of bin Laden will have a significant effect on the setting of milestones and the pace and slope of the US troop withdrawal.
	I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State for International Development will outline, as far as is prudent and possible, our plans in this regard and the
	considerations that will shape the progress of the draw-down. Will he also, without being definitive, indicate the intended completion date, although we recognise that that will, of its essence, be tentative and might be varied in either direction? We all know that the British public are realistic and resolute, but it is also clear that they now want to see our boys, and increasingly our girls, starting to come home.
	Will the Minister indicate what role he sees for the neighbouring powers—obviously Pakistan, but also Iran, Russia, China, India and possibly Turkey, as well as the various “stans”—in this process of a resolution for Afghanistan? They all have significant interests, which are not entirely geopolitical, and many also have kinship with ethnic groups within Afghanistan. However, their interests are not necessarily coincidental and will have to be carefully handled. It is in no one’s interests, neither in the wider world nor in the neighbouring powers, for Afghanistan once again to be a centre of instability and a haven for international terrorism. We need to decide what outcome is desirable and practicable and, together with the United States and the international community, move resolutely towards it.
	In that context, what should be the basis of a settlement? First, there should be a new and more inclusive internal political arrangement in which enough Afghan citizens have a stake and the central Government have enough power and legitimacy to protect the country from threats within and without. Secondly, on which the first depends, there should be a new external settlement that commits Afghanistan’s neighbours to respecting its sovereign integrity, as outlined in the UN resolution that I have mentioned, and carries enough force and support to ensure that they abide by that commitment.
	In the UN’s words, the internal settlement will require
	“a process by which the ex combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income”.
	It will then require reconciliation, including ensuring that tribal, ethnic and other groups are represented and recognised. Parliament and parliamentarians should also be recognised and encouraged. Several Members of Parliament participated in the sessions with the group of Afghan parliamentarians who were over here last month and who are developing a vibrant approach to their democracy. That event was extremely welcome, and we congratulate the organisers, but a lot more needs to be done by us and by the international community to sustain the process. As has been self-evident in many exchanges about this in the Chamber, there must also be a sustained drive to cut corruption.
	In many ways, we have been looking from the wrong end of the telescope at events in what I will describe, in historical terms, as the north-west frontier region. We are considering events in Pakistan in the light of their impact on Afghanistan, whereas the crucial issue is how Afghanistan will affect Pakistan, which is a country of 160 million people—it is the second largest Muslim country—with a significant military, including nuclear, capability. It is also, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly acknowledged on behalf of Britain, a country that has suffered considerable losses from fundamentalist terrorism, and it continues to do so even in recent days. We need to think very seriously about Pakistan’s concerns and prospects. This is not helped by some of the knee-jerk responses to the death of bin Laden that we have seen in the media, with too many people making facile assertions regarding
	subjects about which they do not have, and may well never have, the full picture. Idle speculation on this matter is not helpful in forming an effective, considered judgment, and it is certainly not helpful in the internal politics of the region.
	I therefore welcome the fact that the United States appears determined to continue to support Pakistan rather than to repeat the mistake that it made following the end of the Soviet invasion by cutting aid substantially and drastically. I note the welcome news in today’s Financial Times that Senator Kerry is about to visit Pakistan. However, there is also a clear obligation on Pakistan, in terms of good governance, to improve its administration, especially in relation to tax collection; to improve educational opportunities, particularly in taking education away from fundamentalist madrassahs and thereby ensuring proper education for its young people; to enable and sustain a more pluralist society; and to engage in dialogue significantly to reduce tension with India, which occupies so much attention and resources in both countries.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that commentators in the British press who attack aid support for Pakistan and Afghanistan are missing the point in that if we do not deliver education, hope and livelihoods to those countries, the chances of reducing terrorism and disintegration are lower, not higher?

John Spellar: I certainly do. This is an argument that needs to be had right across the world. Recently in Australia, there was a big attack on the aid programme to Indonesia—again, it is substantial—which is designed to ensure proper secular, state-run education, so that youngsters do not only get their education in fundamentalist organisations. It is enormously important that we sustain that programme for the future of that country, the largest Muslim country, as it is for the future of Pakistan, the second largest Muslim country. That is essential not only for the long-term security of the region but for international security. I was encouraged by the comments of the Foreign Secretary on that subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will enlarge on them in his response.
	Turning to the middle east and north Africa, it has been rightly said that the death of bin Laden was a serious setback for al-Qaeda, but the most telling blow has been the Arab spring, with its demands for democracy and more open societies, and certainly not for al-Qaeda’s dream of a return to mediaeval brutality. We should be realistic about the various elements that are involved in that movement and the possible course of developments.
	I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his Mansion House speech. I notice that he recycled quite a bit of it in his speech this evening. That is obviously part of the Government’s commitment to be greener. However, the speech bears repetition. As he rightly said:
	“Demands for open government, action against corruption and greater political participation will spread by themselves over time, not because Western nations are advocating them but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere.”
	In that context, we should recognise that the events in the middle east and north Africa are not isolated. A tide has been sweeping around the world.
	In spite of some disappointments, we should reflect on how much progress has been made around the world over the past couple of decades. Most countries in
	south America have emerged from military dictatorship, are overcoming their ruthless, destructive guerrilla groups and are building a better future. Interestingly, in his famous Chicago speech in 1999, Tony Blair referred to the need for
	“more effective ways of resolving crises, like that in Brazil.”
	Brazil is now a roaring economic power, and it has just celebrated the election of a new successive social democratic President. The countries of eastern Europe have returned to their European home, having thrown off the shackles of their corrupt, vicious, incompetent communist leaderships and the Warsaw pact. They have willingly joined NATO and the EU. Indonesia, which I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), is the world’s fourth most populous state and the largest Muslim state. In 10 years, it has gone from being a military-backed dictatorship to being a vibrant democracy with a rapidly expanding economy. It is now a G20 member and an effective partner against terrorism. There has been a seismic, historic shift in the international landscape, and we should recognise and welcome that.
	That is why we fully supported and support the Government’s decision to join international partners to enforce United Nations resolutions 1970 and 1973 in Libya. Those who query resolution 1973 and this country’s rapid decision to act must consider how we would have felt, and how the world would have reacted, if Gaddafi’s tanks and death squads had poured into Benghazi over that weekend and killed people, to use his words, “like rats”. In this day and age, that would all have been carried out on 24-hour TV in real time.
	While giving support, it is our responsibility, as a Parliament and as an Opposition, to scrutinise carefully the Government’s conduct and effectiveness in fulfilling the task. We need from the Government a clearer and better articulated strategy. Frankly, we need them to explain how their self-imposed cuts to our expeditionary capability will enable them to implement the policy. The article that the Prime Minister wrote with the French and US Presidents in April said:
	“So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds”.
	It is incumbent on the Government to be clearer to this House and to the British people about how they propose to bring about such a resolution of this situation, especially in the light of the comments over the weekend.
	It was asked earlier, but I think it needs to be asked again, what is meant by “infrastructure targets”. If it means command and control posts within a military structure, I understand that. I think it is arguable—I hope that the Attorney-General would back me—that that is perfectly within the bounds of the UN resolution. If, as some commentators have suggested, it means industrial infrastructure, and particularly electricity infrastructure, we have considerable doubts. Even in Kosovo, which was a major operation, the object was to immobilise the transmission systems not to destroy them, because after military operations are over, there is a need to reconstruct the country. It is difficult to do that without adequate electricity supplies. It is therefore important that we have clarity on what is meant by infrastructure. One meaning is perfectly within the current programme, but otherwise we have considerable questions and doubts.
	It has to be clear that there is continuing international and regional support for our strategy. I can see no UN mandate for ground troops to move into Libya, and I think it is fair to say that there is no chance of getting such a mandate at the Security Council and no prospect of regional support. We must recognise that there is little appetite among the British public for such a course of action, and I suspect that the situation is similar in the United States and France.
	I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will update the House on the considerable efforts of his Department, with others in the international community, to assist the 750,000 people who are estimated to have crossed from Libya into neighbouring countries, and to get supplies to people in parts of Libya that are under siege from Libyan Government forces. I do not underestimate the task, but we need to know how we are tackling it, because it is substantial and urgent.
	What are our realistic options across the middle east and north Africa? Although it is true that we are one of the few countries with the strategic capability to provide meaningful intervention, we must recognise the constraints imposed by our existing commitments elsewhere, the clear problems of overstretch, and the cuts made in the strategic defence and security review, which are increasingly seen as ill advised and outdated. Whatever action we take will be in conjunction with others, and not only our key strategic ally, the United States, but increasingly the EU, or at least key European allies. It has become clear, particularly in the last week or so, that a stretched United States has self-imposed limitations. Our European deliberations will have to consider that, and our response will have to be shaped accordingly. It is true that we could take a position of splendid isolation and say that those issues are nothing to do with us, but developments would continue in north Africa and the middle east. Although we should not overestimate our ability to shape events, we should not underestimate it either.
	A key area is to develop capacity for the emerging democratic forces and parties in the countries concerned. It would be tragic if the principal beneficiaries of the new democracies were the remnants of the old dictatorial parties or underground fundamentalist Islamist groups. We should draw on the experience of eastern Europe, where post-communist parties were able to exert disproportionate influence because of their well-developed corrupt networks. I am sure all parties hope that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will play a major role in building capacity for democratic parties.

Andrew Murrison: I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I am slightly concerned that he may not have learned the lessons of the past, in particular with respect to Iraq, where a thoroughgoing programme of de- Ba’athification stripped out the whole of the middle class and political class, making reconstruction far more difficult than it might have been. Does he not think that we should be cautious about completely stripping out individuals who may have been associated in some small way with an unsavoury old regime?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I fully agree that the de-Ba’athification programme and the disbanding of the Iraqi army
	contributed substantially to many of Iraq’s problems. I am turning that point around and saying that I do not want the established networks of the old corrupt parties or the well-organised networks of the Islamist groups, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, to have a free field.
	What I am talking about is not taking such people out of the structure but ensuring that emerging democratic forces, which by definition have been underground but are not organised in a Leninist fashion, can develop the capacity to compete on an equal playing field. They will then be able to play a proper role and not be outgunned—literally, sometimes, but certainly in finance and capacity —by other parties, which would have a detrimental effect. I am talking about building alternative capacity rather than moving along the route that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is the best prospect for the future of democracy in the countries in question.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Tunisia, there is serious concern about the resurrection of many of the security forces that existed under the Ben Ali regime, which are treating protests and demonstrations with great brutality and great force? They are breaking them up and seem to be trying to suppress the very voices of dissent that brought about the huge changes in February in the first place.

John Spellar: We certainly ought to be concerned about that; my hon. Friend highlights another significant concern. Because of the vast array of countries across a wide and diverse region, our debates focus on certain countries. Inevitably, today’s debate will be focused primarily on Afghanistan and Libya, along with maybe one or two other countries. I am concerned that some of the countries that have been making some progress might start to slip off the radar, and it is important that we do not allow that to happen.
	We must not allow our level of interest in the countries that are making progress to fall. Development there must be sustained, because there will not just be a steady path towards a democratic society. There will be pitfalls along the way. To make a comparison with eastern Europe again, the involvement of the secret police networks can be a considerable factor in the development of those countries, as I described earlier. We ought to be alert to that problem, but we should also take the positive way and build the capacity of democratic parties so that they can take the best advantage of democratic elections when they come.
	I hope that Members of all parties will consider the role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other such bodies can play in building capacity for democratic parties. The Foreign Secretary has announced substantial cuts in the Foreign Office programme—the sum will go down from something like £139 million to £100 million. We did not get details, but we need to know whether the cuts will have an impact on those organisations and their programmes.
	In the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, he talked about increasing our presence in a number of missions across the world. Interestingly enough, only one of those, Pakistan, is in the area that we are discussing today. There was, understandably, mention of a reduction in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in none of the other countries concerned did it seem there would
	be an increase in our local involvement despite the considerable interest that we need to be taking in them. On the face of it, that seems a slightly strange decision, and it would be helpful to have some explanation.
	We have to recognise that not all of the liberation of eastern Europe went smoothly. Ethnic tensions rose to the surface, and in one case, Czechoslovakia, were resolved by a—fortunately peaceful—division of the state. Catastrophically, however, in Yugoslavia they led to vicious civil wars, appalling violence and the necessity for NATO intervention. Some states in north Africa and the middle east are fairly homogenous, but others are riven by ethnic differences and, in some cases, considerable and long-standing ethnic feuds. The international community must use all its endeavours to ensure that the outcome of the Arab spring is more like Poland than Yugoslavia. In that context, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Tunisia and hope, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), that we will not focus only on countries where there is conflict. We must also provide assistance to those that are making a more orderly transition.
	I shall move on briefly to the middle east and the Israel-Palestine issue. I am sure that everyone in the House and internationally is frustrated by the failure to get engagement in substantive talks leading to the creation of a new Palestinian state, living peacefully side by side with Israel. We echo the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, which he repeated today, when he expressed Britain’s concern about the violence on the border and the loss of life, and called on all parties to exercise restraint. We should be persuaders for peace, to ensure that Palestinian aspirations can be realised alongside Israel’s equally legitimate desire for a peaceful existence within secure and recognised borders.

David Winnick: I certainly do not question Israel’s right to exist—I have made my views about that clear over the years. It was brought into existence by the international community and has as much right to exist as any other state, but not in the occupied territories. How can Israel genuinely say that it wishes to bring about a two-state solution at some stage—not that it has put much emphasis on that—when so much of the occupied territories has had settlements built on it? On what site is the second state, the proposed Palestinian state, going to exist?

John Spellar: I say to my hon. Friend and near neighbour that in all the discussions on the middle east, and particularly on Palestine-Israel, there is a danger of what David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist party in Northern Ireland, who went from terrorist activities to a very significant role in the peace process, described as “whataboutery”. I could equally respond to my hon. Friend’s valid points by asking, what about this, that and the other? What about the failure to implement the Camp David accord? What about the terrorist activities?
	At the end of the day, the international community and the parties concerned have to get back to the basic fundamental principle of ensuring the establishment of a two-state solution on borders agreed internationally and between the parties, with the states living together in harmony. I cannot put it better than UN Security Council resolution 1850, which said that
	“lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror, and the two-State solution”.
	I very much hope, as I am sure we all do, that the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington this month will intensify that process and involve a relaunch of the peace initiative by the Obama Administration. I am sure we all look forward to the President’s address on that subject.

Julian Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking very sensibly on this subject. I have always supported a two-state solution. Does he agree that Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, where there were many settlements, shows that if an agreement for withdrawal could be reached, settlements need not stand in the way?

John Spellar: Yes, and I presume that the hon. Gentleman would also have mentioned the fact that the Israeli army enforced those movements under the direction of Sharon. Pointing such things out is important, but it is equally important to get back to the fundamental need for talks and negotiation on the acceptance of a two-state solution. From many of the discussions that there have been, I do not believe that the sides are too far apart on the detail. We therefore look forward to the initiative that we hope the US Administration will take later this month, which we hope all parties will then pursue.
	On Syria, we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about making approaches to the EU and the UN to step up pressure on the regime. At the moment, however, the regime seems well past his “fork in the road”, and I hope that the message is getting through to it clearly.
	I am mindful of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and of the numbers who wish to speak in the debate, so I wish to raise only two other issues—and to do so briefly. First, on protecting our security and national interest, and ensuring stability in the region, the Foreign Secretary will be unsurprised if I once again raise the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia. The problem now stretches right round the gulf of Aden and out into the Indian ocean, which has a considerable effect on countries in the region. Nearly 800 seafarers are being held hostage, often in appalling conditions. Some have been brutally murdered. More than 30 ships are being held—some are used as mother ships to extend the pirates’ reach far into the Indian ocean. Ransoms totalling well over $100 million were paid last year, and there are credible reports that the pirates have entered a deal with the al-Shabab organisation in Somalia, which is linked to al-Qaeda, for a percentage of the ransom.
	Therefore, in effect, the shipping industry is directly funding terrorism. There has been some response, but I feel that it has been inadequate. I had a helpful response from an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I was concerned when a Defence Minister told me that there had been no recent change in the rules of engagement. I recognise that there is no easy instant solution, but there is a danger that the crisis will continue to outrun and overwhelm the response. Piracy threatens not only lives but a vital world trade route. Incidentally, the unwillingness of crews and ships to go through the Suez canal and pay dues could have a damaging effect on the income of the emerging Egyptian democracy. Frankly, the Government need to get a grip on that. They must engage with other maritime nations and get commitments for sufficient ships and personnel, but there must also be a step change in the rules of engagement and operational tempo.
	To pull those arguments together and put them in a broader context, we do not accept that if we intervene anywhere in the world, we must take action everywhere. Nor do we accept the converse—that if we cannot or will not take action in one country, we should be immobilised elsewhere. That is why the previous Labour Government, when I was a Defence Minister, intervened militarily in Sierra Leone, but were unable to take action against the brutally repressive Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.
	I also accept—the Opposition have supported the Government in this respect—that a range of factors must be taken into consideration, and that countries must be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, we would like evidence not only of more coherent planning, but of more rigorous analysis. Around the time of Kosovo both Tony Blair, in his Chicago address, and Kofi Annan, in his Ditchley lecture, extensively developed the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. They might have been controversial, but they helped to create a framework within which policy could be decided, and indeed scrutinised and criticised.
	I have not detected the development of such a doctrine in the speeches of the Foreign Secretary, including his speech today. The Opposition support much in his policy, but we require the Government as a whole to get their act together on policy and to be more effective on delivery. In short, we believe that it is time for them to get a grip.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. A time limit of eight minutes will be imposed, plus two minutes for injury time. However, I caution Members to frame a six-minute speech in their heads, because that is what they are likely to be allotted by the time they are called.

Malcolm Rifkind: In the short time available, I shall concentrate my comments on two matters: first, the conclusions we should draw from bin Laden’s demise, and secondly, the remaining challenges faced by the international community with regard to Libya.
	Bin Laden’s demise was of course an historic event. We should not underestimate the significance of the US special forces operation, or of the extraordinary intelligence operation that their achievement represented. The timing of the operation is significant in that it happened right in the middle of the Arab spring. What could better demonstrate the ultimate irrelevance of what al-Qaeda has to offer? There is reason to believe—a massive amount of evidence has emerged from throughout the Arab world—that the lure and attraction of, and the significance of and interest in, al-Qaeda are beginning to wane. Al-Qaeda not only does not feature in the demands of the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrate throughout the Arab world for reform and change, but it has been positively rejected by many as they advance claims for universal values.
	However, if we begin to believe that the attraction of al-Qaeda is waning in the Arab world, I caution the House against coming to a similar conclusion with
	regard to Pakistan. We are in a very different time zone there when it comes to the possibilities of change. Bin Laden may have been of Saudi or Yemeni origin, but we should remember that ultimately the al-Qaeda movement originated in south Asia, not in the Arab world. We also know that that happened in the context of experiences in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is perhaps significant and not irrelevant—I do not want to anticipate events—that the only revenge act so far in response to the assassination of bin Laden has come not from al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban, but from the Pakistani Taliban, who feel, and who have expressed sympathy for al-Qaeda and endorsed it.
	That is significant for how we see developments in Afghanistan. There is a powerful argument for saying that if our original purpose for going into Afghanistan was the threat of al-Qaeda operating from within the country, that reason is now much less valid than it has been at any time in the past few years. However, the question of the timing and method of our withdrawal from Afghanistan must take into account not just the implications within that country, but to an even greater extent, the possible consequences for the destabilisation of Pakistan. Up to now, we have primarily worried about the consequences of al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban using the border as a refuge zone, but in some ways, things are now the other way around. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, the problem in Pakistan is of far greater significance to the wider stability of the world, and it must be given priority. I hope that that is taken into account.
	On Libya, I pay tribute to what has already been achieved. There is no doubt that Benghazi would have experienced an incredible massacre, and that Misrata would have been overthrown by Gaddafi, but for the efforts that have been made. However, those who have warned of the dangers of stalemate pose a real question. Without wanting to criticise the Government—I am aware of the international constraints on what they can do—there is a fundamental inconsistency in arguing that the mission is purely humanitarian at the same time as making it clear that it cannot be completed until we have, in effect, regime change.
	The question, therefore, is this: how does one square that circle, and can it be squared in a way that does not breach the UN resolution? Whether we like it or not, that is the framework within which we must operate. As I see it, there are only three ways in which that stalemate can be broken over a reasonable period of time. First, implosion in Tripoli is quite possible. In the past few months, a significant number of leading Gaddafi adherents have defected. It is not impossible or inconceivable—it could happen next week or next month—that many of the senior adherents who remain, including generals and Cabinet Ministers, will simply fade away and disappear. I suspect that even Gaddafi’s immediate family will eventually not wish to share his bunker. Saif al-Islam and some of his colleagues might prefer to be in the south of France rather than the quagmire that Gaddafi’s regime could become.
	That is one option, but we cannot count on it, and certainly not in any short time scale. The second option is a very slow process of gradual disintegration of the regime. That might be happening already because of the combined impact of economic sanctions and the fact that the oilfields are primarily in the east of the country, with very little utilisable refining capacity in
	the west, plus all the other forms of political, diplomatic and other pressure that is being put on the regime. However, by itself, that will not deliver the outcome that we need to bring this matter to a conclusion for many months, and possibly for several years. It is a serious option, but do we want to contemplate that the international action will take that long?
	That leads me to the third option. What do we do, and what can we do within the UN resolution, to help the insurgents who are struggling for freedom and the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime? We have had a crucial watershed in the past couple of weeks in how the British and other Governments treat those insurgents. This is perhaps the first debate in which they have not been described as rebels. For many months, that was the description used not just in this country, but elsewhere, but that is no longer the case. The insurgents have been invited to open an office in London, they are being treated as serious politicians, and they are rightly considered to have greater legitimacy than the Gaddafi regime, which I welcome. However, we also know that they do not have the military capability to achieve the result that we all want.
	The question is whether that can be achieved within the terms of the UN resolution. If it requires us—I do not complain about this—simply to protect civilians, what happens if there is hand-to-hand fighting in Misrata or Tripoli? It could not be stopped by air power or an international coalition; it could be stopped only by the people on the ground. Only they could protect civilians in such a situation. Therefore, I argue—and I believe that some of the legal advice agrees—that if we could be satisfied that the provision of military assistance to the insurgents would help to protect civilian lives and deal with the threat to civilians in Libya, it would be consistent with the resolution. In those circumstances, that kind of help should be considered. In reality, of course, that sort of help is already being given. The French, the Qataris and several other countries are already providing it, whether or not they acknowledge it publicly.
	Were that help to be provided—I am talking about training as well as weapons—two things would happen. First, those around Gaddafi would know that the game was up, and gradually, as the insurgents became more of a disciplined, trained military force, it would become obvious—in their view, as well as in ours—that the regime was finished. Secondly, Misrata and the east of the country would gradually be united under insurgent control, and Gaddafi’s remaining power would be so restricted as to be insignificant. That is the real challenge, not just for the British Government, but for the international community, and I believe that we can respond to this situation positively within the terms of the UN resolution.

Ann Clwyd: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Iraq, because it is seldom mentioned now, and needs to be mentioned far more often. I have three recent Amnesty reports on Iraq that are well worth reading, because they point out some of the deficiencies in the Iraq that we have left behind. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, emboldened by the successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, have taken to the streets since early February to protest against the chronic lack of basic services, rising prices, mass unemployment and endemic corruption, and to demand greater civil and political rights. Unfortunately, the security forces have
	frequently responded with excessive force, using live ammunition, sound bombs and other weapons forcibly to disperse peaceful protesters, particularly during what the Iraqis called the “day of rage” on 25 February, when demonstrations were held across Iraq. At least 20 people were killed, many of those arrested say that they were tortured or ill-treated, and journalists trying to cover the protests, as well as political activists, have been targeted for attack or threats.
	I obviously have a particular interest in this subject because, for seven years, I was special envoy on human rights to Iraq for the previous two Prime Ministers. I therefore have an ongoing interest in the development of human rights there. During this “day of rage”, protesters used violence, mainly by throwing stones at members of the security forces or public buildings, and on rare occasions by setting fire to public buildings, and as a result members of the security forces have also been injured. On 30 March, in a belated but welcome development, the Iraqi authorities announced that their security forces were under orders not to use firearms against demonstrators except where necessary for self-defence.
	Up to now, the Iraqi authorities, in both Baghdad and Kurdistan, have sought to crack down on peaceful protesters. That obviously has to change. As Amnesty wrote:
	“They should be cracking down on the use of excessive force and torture by their own largely unaccountable security forces, not on the right of people to peacefully protest. The Iraqi authorities should be upholding the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including the right to protest, not trying to suppress them. It is high time to do so…Torture and other ill-treatment were widespread in Iraq before the US-led invasion in 2003”,
	of which we were part,
	“and continued in prisons and detention facilities controlled by coalition forces and the new Iraqi governments. Since 2004, suspects held in Iraqi custody have been systematically tortured and dozens of detainees have died as a result.”
	In my seven years as special envoy, I continually visited prisons and detention centres and spoke on many occasions to the Iraqi human rights Minister, to whom I pay tribute, because she has a difficult job but has not had enough support.
	Amnesty also wrote that
	“US forces handed over tens of thousands of prisoners to Iraqi custody between early 2009 and July 2010 without any guarantees that they will be protected.”
	I argued constantly in this Chamber that they should not have been handed over to the Iraqis, because they did not have the capacity to deal with the thousands of detainees they were expected to hold. Amnesty also wrote that
	“there is every likelihood that torture and ill-treatment will remain widespread. Such abuses have a devastating impact on the victims not just when they are being tortured or ill-treated, but often for years afterwards…Urgent action is needed to end the pattern of abuse and to help the victims and their families.”
	I received an e-mail from an American working in Iraq. His name is Tom Cruise—not the actor Tom Cruise—and he is the former senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence directorate of human rights. He came to see me several times in the Baghdad embassy because of his great concern about an Iraqi prisoner killed while in detention. He wrote to me in February saying that he was still trying
	“to bring attention to the disturbing torture and murder of detainee Adnan in…the former Iraqi 2/3/6 brigade which was run by BG Nasser who is now the Commander of the Iraqi 2nd DIV in Mosul.”
	He was tortured and murdered, and the person responsible was known to everybody. His name is Lieutenant Nabil Rahman Ali Mosa al-Yasseri. After eight months of intensive investigation by the FBI, he was located and arrested in al-Hillah. He was held for a mere 10 weeks, and then suddenly he departed. He was helped to escape. Tom Cruise wrote:
	“I hope this communication can serve to bring the necessary attention to resurrect this matter and initiate further judicial action so the world can see that Iraq respects human rights and it is important for all and especially for Adnan Awad Mohammed Thaib Al-Jumaila and his family.”
	Our embassy has raised this matter with the Iraqi President, Deputy President, Prime Minister and many others in Iraq, but with no results. Obviously, I think that the UK Government can play an important role in putting pressure on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that detainees are either released or brought promptly to trial on recognisable criminal charges, with full and fair trial rights and without recourse to the death penalty. We have invested too much—in money and blood—in the country to allow this abuse of human rights to continue in Iraq.

Richard Ottaway: It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is a Foreign Affairs Committee member.
	In my judgment, we made the right decision in March to establish a no-fly zone. At the time, there were concerns about a stalemate and about setting a precedent, but we had a UN resolution and a request from the Arab League to support us and to quell our doubts. The question was whether to intervene or not to intervene, and we chose the lesser of two evils to save Benghazi. As a result, there has been no slaughter in Benghazi, and to that extent it has been a success. We do have a stalemate, however. The question now is how to break the stalemate.
	The UN resolution has been widely interpreted. We had the rather unexpected remarks over the weekend of General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who has called for a change in the rules of engagement to enable NATO to attack infrastructure to oust Gaddafi. There is a clear difference in our policy between our military and our political objectives. Our military objectives are humanitarian—in that, we are backed up by a United Nations resolution—whereas our political objective, which is not backed by the UN, is to remove Gaddafi. I think that General Richards has come pretty darn close to the latter course of action, touching on the political objectives. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, regime change was set out by Tony Blair in his Chicago speech. I do not support that speech—I do not believe in regime change, and I reject the notions that he set out—but there is a difference between wanting regime change and using military force to achieve it, and General Richards is close to that concept.
	The question that I would put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is whether General Richards was authorised to make that speech. Is there a legal opinion that says that targeting infrastructure is legal? Can he say what General Richards meant by infrastructure? Was he talking about
	refineries and power stations? If so, then in my opinion that would not be legal. Going down that road would need an amendment to Security Council resolution 1973 and, of course, a further resolution of this House, which adopted it. Such a policy would also be divisive within NATO. Furthermore, it is not in Libya’s interest to wipe out its economy by attacking the refineries and power stations. When we come to help rebuild that country, we will need that infrastructure—that was one of the mistakes that we made in Iraq. We may be critical in the House of Commons about what is happening in Libya, but it is our reputation and the perception of the Arab world that counts.
	So what is the exit strategy? Having achieved the military objective, how will the Government achieve their political objective? There is a big gap between the two concepts. There is nothing wrong with the no-fly zone, the economic sanctions and the hope that a lucky hit on a command and control centre will destroy Gaddafi, but we need to send clear messages to the regime around him. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of an amnesty. Why not suggest an amnesty for those around Gaddafi who abandon him and co-operate in bringing him down? It is not beyond the realms of credibility to start talks between the regime and the rebels. We do it where the IRA is concerned and we are proposing to do it in Afghanistan, so why not in Libya?
	Let me touch briefly on the Government’s decision to cut the World Service and the Arabic service that it broadcasts. We need soft power to help us in this situation. Cutting the World Service at this point is a mistake.
	What is happening in Syria is wholly unacceptable, but the army is solidly behind President Assad. He had a choice, between reform and oppression, and he chose repression, so why do we not have a no-fly zone there? The difference is that we have neither a request from the Arab League nor a UN resolution. I regret the Arab League’s inconsistency and silence on Syria. I have no doubt that it is silent because no one wants the next domino to fall—that is the Arab League’s reservation—but it is still regrettable that it remains silent.
	The death of Osama bin Laden represents an opportunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Foreign Affairs Committee calls for talks in Afghanistan, and I believe that there is a momentum there that can be built on. However, we have to rebuild the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan is a key player. It is a nuclear power and will be involved in any settlement negotiations in Afghanistan. Pakistan is clearly shaken by the death of Osama bin Laden. When the Foreign Affairs Committee went there last October, I was quite shaken by the level of hostility expressed by people in the Pakistan Administration towards the United States. Patching up the relationship will not be smooth, but Britain has a unique role to play. It is the one country in the world that is trusted by both the United States and Pakistan, and it is not beyond the realms of credibility to try to broker talks. Indeed, may I venture to suggest that we could broker talks between the two here in London?
	This is a busy time in foreign affairs. I conclude by paying tribute to the Foreign Office. It is having to address action on two fronts, with the usual consular challenges all around. It has a trade policy that it is desperately trying to promote, and it is also dealing with more than its fair share of natural disasters. We have the middle east situation to deal with and, of
	course, the latest developments in Israel and Palestine. The Foreign Office faces a challenging situation, but in all this it has the full support of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will of course engage in constructive criticism of the Foreign Office, but we want it and Britain to succeed. As a diplomatic organisation the Foreign Office is the envy of the world. Let us try to keep it that way.

Gerald Kaufman: Three months ago it seemed that the Arab spring in north Africa and the middle east might bring democracy to widespread areas of the region. Tunisia made major changes with its jasmine revolution, and Egypt rid itself of the Mubarak regime, even though the aftermath rumbles on. Now, however, the situation seems far less promising. Syria, Bahrain and Yemen continue to suppress the movements for democracy, with continuing serious loss of life inflicted by brutal regimes.
	In Libya, not only has the situation reached deadlock, but misgivings must be aroused by NATO’s lack of political direction. UN Security Council resolution 1973 was right and necessary. There is no doubt that the implementation of the no-fly zone has saved very many lives. However, NATO now appears to be stuck, turning to regime-change policies, which are in no way authorised by the resolution. Loathsome though Gaddafi may be, attacks on his compound, apparently targeting him personally, are unacceptable, and it is deplorable that members of his family have been killed. There is no way in which the Security Council has authorised political assassination. It is essential that there should be a clear line of political control, linked to discernible political objectives. The resolution would otherwise never have been nodded through by Russia and China. It is a matter of concern that over the weekend General Sir David Richards tried to state political objectives that are not within his remit. Our brave armed forces are there to carry out objectives decided politically. It is not their leaders’ role to make or urge political policies.
	Political assassination appears to be becoming the flavour of the month. I shed no tears for Osama bin Laden, a monster who was responsible for this century’s most lurid atrocity, but for Barack Obama to violate another country’s sovereignty by sending in an assassination squad must arouse deep concern, especially as the White House has made so many conflicting statements that it is impossible to know what really happened in Abbottabad. Was bin Laden armed, and did he seek to resist with arms, thus provoking the Americans to kill him? Did he try to use women as human shields, or was he unarmed? Was any real attempt made to take him alive and put him on trial for his crimes? The White House's handling of the situation has turned a killing into reality TV. There is also a lethal aftermath: 80 innocent Pakistanis were killed by the Taliban at the weekend in what they say was a revenge attack, with a threat of more to come. Did the Americans think this through before they acted?
	This latest episode confirms—to me, at any rate—that Obama is simply a sanctimonious version of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. An example is his breaking his pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay illegal torture camp. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser, has said of Obama: he does not strategise; he sermonises. Nowhere has Obama’s failure been more damaging than in his handling of—or
	inability to handle—the Israel-Palestine stand-off. On 4 June 2009, he made a ponderous speech in Cairo that was supposed to launch a successful peace initiative. Now, two years later, not only has there been no such initiative but his envoy has packed it in and the situation has become threateningly worse. We are told that the President is going to say something more, quite soon. He will be praised for his oratory, but will it have any practical, useful or helpful consequences?
	This past weekend, Israeli soldiers slaughtered 14 more Palestinian protesters. Last week, they murdered a Palestinian teenager on the west bank. Their brutal treatment of peaceful protesters with rubber bullets, tear gas, the spraying of sewage and the manhandling of women and children would be the object of condemnation if inflicted by any other country. The way in which Israeli soldiers maltreat Palestinians is appalling. A Palestinian contact of mine e-mailed me at the weekend with this description of what happened on Friday:
	“In Nabi Saleh where I was, the soldiers attacked the men and women with extreme cruelty, although our demonstration was extremely peaceful. We had at least 24 injuries, without counting injuries with pepper spray. They were shooting the gas canisters right at us, aiming at our bodies. One American citizen was shot with a canister on his head. I was standing right to him and I saw the soldier aiming at him. The man is fine now, but he lost part of his scalp.”
	I cannot fault the way in which our Government have reacted to this situation, and I particularly commend the Secretary of State for International Development for the way in which his Department has done everything possible to assist those affected. In the end, however, only the United States can exert the necessary pressure to make Israel see sense. The Palestinians are an oppressed people, and the Israelis will never know peace and security until there is a two-state solution. How long, O Lord, how long?

Malcolm Bruce: As befits my role as Chair of the International Development Select Committee, I will concentrate on the development aspects of this wide-ranging debate. In the context of Libya, I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) about the Department’s prompt response to the emerging crisis in north Africa, and especially to the evacuation of people fleeing the violence of the conflict. I also commend the non-governmental organisations that are operating in difficult conditions, often under fire, to provide medical relief, assistance and support to those beleaguered people.
	We all recognise the capacity of the Department to respond to these situations, and the way in which it has done so is extremely welcome, although I think that the Secretary of State would agree that Libya is not a prime target for our aid programme and budget, and nor should it be. Clearly, reconstruction should be carried out within the country’s own resources, but in regard to the first and immediate response, it is good to know that we can respond as well as we have done. In passing I would point out that, as and when we get a resolution that enables Libya to start its reconstruction, the prime investment should come from within its own resources and those of its Arab League neighbours, although we will want to have a constructive engagement if, as we hope, a more benign regime emerges from the conflict.
	As far as the rest of the middle east is concerned, one area of interest is the role of the European Union’s external relations strategy. It has focused on the neighbourhood to the east of Europe, which does not have quite the same affinity but which has nevertheless been pursuing a Mediterranean policy. I hope that our Government will encourage the EU to shift the emphasis of its neighbourhood policy towards north Africa a little, rather than seeking to draw down more of the development budget from the UK. It is a matter of some embarrassment that the money we pay into the central budget of the EU goes into a neighbourhood policy that is classified as overseas development assistance, the prime beneficiary of which is Turkey. There is nothing wrong with encouraging Turkey to join the European Union, but it is a little disappointing that that overseas development assistance, which the UK would prefer to go to the poorest people in the poorest countries, is going to those who have the capacity to address their own problems. I hope that the UK has a degree of authority to assert in this instance. Given that we will be the first G20 country to achieve a 0.7% commitment on overseas development assistance by 2013, I think that we are entitled to say to other members of the European Union, which will not have achieved that, that they should not be diverting their aid away from where it could be most effectively targeted.
	I intervened on the Foreign Secretary about the middle east peace process. We will be giving £343 million to the occupied Palestinian territories over the lifetime of this Parliament, which is a tragedy because we would not have to give anything if a proper peace process were in place. The area is not incapable of economic activity; it is prevented from being economically active by the frozen conflict. We should use whatever influence we have through the Quartet—I accept that the United States is the dominant influence—to point out to Israel that if it responds to the protests of the frustrated Palestinians in the way that Syria has responded to its protesters, the international community has a responsibility to put pressure on Israel to behave differently, even if we have no ability to intervene in Syria. We must point out that, if Israel does not unblock the peace process now, it could make matters much worse in the short to medium term and that it is really missing an opportunity.
	Afghanistan and Pakistan are totally interlinked. The irony is that it looks as though we have more possibility of achieving stability in Afghanistan, difficult though that might be, than we do in Pakistan. It is instructive to take on board the fact that we are committing £2.1 billion of UK overseas development assistance over the course of this Parliament to Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. We must ensure that people understand why we are doing that. The military engagement in Afghanistan understandably gets all the attention, because our soldiers—male and female—are losing their lives in that operation. At the end of the day, however, it is our ability to deliver real improvements in the quality of life, education, health and livelihoods in Afghanistan that will have the most chance of giving people a sense that our engagement has validity and that we are on their side rather than against them.
	The same applies, perhaps even more, in Pakistan. I know that the Secretary of State has placed particular emphasis on visiting that country and ensuring that our
	aid has precisely that effect. Pakistan has a huge, young and very suggestible population who are open to persuasion to take up extreme political positions. The best way to address that—although the outcome is not guaranteed—is to give people access to things that will give them a stake in the future and make them less inclined to join the terrorist activity to which they might otherwise be recruited.
	I want to summarise the complicated developments taking place all over the world. Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union took place with unexpected suddenness, so did the onset of what is being called the Arab spring. Looking back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can see that we failed to hold Russia to a path of pluralism, democracy and human rights, but we were able to offer its satellites the opportunity to break away from the Soviet Union, achieve democracy and join NATO and the European Union. We cannot do quite the same for the Arab states, but we should hold out a hand of friendship and encouragement. To the extent that they can move towards pluralism, democracy and human rights, they will find willing partners to engage with in Europe.
	We must not underestimate the fact that the Iraq war incensed middle eastern and Arab opinion. It also distracted us from the legitimate tasks in Afghanistan, took our eyes off Pakistan and, in many ways, damaged the legitimacy of the democratic world when engaging in these issues. We need to tread more softly if we are to build trust and respect that can open the way for economic development and poverty reduction, and expand the numbers and proportion of people in all those countries who have a stake in peace, transparency and the rule of law. We need to be a little more humble and a little less arrogant, and we need to use our soft power development funding in ways that build trust and confidence where our foreign policy has not always achieved the same result.

Dan Jarvis: As we approach the sixth anniversary of 7/7 and the 10th anniversary of 9/11, my thoughts turn to the lives so tragically lost. It is clear that the war on terror is the battle of our era—a struggle to rid perceptions and ethics, ideology and religion of extremism and its deadly inevitability.
	I find it hard to rejoice at the death of any man, even that of Osama bin Laden. I hope that his death is the beginning of the end for al-Qaeda—I accept that it might not be—but we must not be naive of history: no individual is irreplaceable; the war, the fight and the danger are far from over. However, bin Laden’s death provides us with an opportunity which, if seized, could lead to real progress in the fight against extremist violence, especially on the two key fronts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There could be no better tribute to bin Laden’s victims than to use his death for lasting good.
	In this war, our relationship with Pakistan is perhaps the most crucial. One immediate impact of the raid on Abbottabad has been to put that country under pressure as never before. One well-informed observer in Pakistan told me over the weekend that the country feels like it is in anaphylactic shock, while some in my constituency called for us to review our co-operation and aid in the light of the perception that Pakistan was complicit in harbouring the world’s most wanted man.
	I doubt whether we will ever know the hard facts about what the Government of Pakistan knew or did not know about bin Laden’s whereabouts. It should be investigated, but what is most important is the bigger question of our overall longer-term relationship with Pakistan. There are clearly severe problems that need to be resolved and changes that can and must be made. We need urgently to find new ways to do that, but there is an overriding mutual interest in making the relationship work. I think that the basic outline of how to achieve that is clear.
	Pakistan has legitimate concerns about sovereignty and its own security. Those concerns can be addressed, but in exchange, the Pakistanis cannot pursue those interests in a way that directly undermines stability in Afghanistan and harbours extremism at home or abroad. I believe that the crisis that has followed the killing of bin Laden provides a real opportunity for ourselves and the Pakistanis to reflect on how we refine our relationship to suit our shared interests. It is an opportunity we must take; indeed, we have to take it and we have to get it right. The consequences of failure—for ourselves and for the Pakistanis alike—are too dangerous to contemplate.
	The UK's interest in a stable, democratic and peaceful Pakistan is clear. The country faces serious challenges and internal divisions. Those are very real: they include rising political tensions, unrest in the tribal areas, insecurity on its borders and more violent extremist groups than any other nation in the world. As with the wider middle east and north Africa as well as Afghanistan, the UK will feel the effects of state failure in Pakistan all too directly. The path used to import its product—whether it be drugs, the hateful rhetoric of extremism or the suicide bomber—is well trodden. We should also not forget how many of Pakistan’s people have died as a result of terrorism or in their fight to contain it. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Pakistan collapsing into internal strife or war with its neighbours is a nightmare. Now, more than ever, Pakistanis need us to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Rory Stewart: It is great to say that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan and that we should respect its security interests, but what exactly does the hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean recognise the Durand line or the boundaries with Kashmir? What security interests is he talking about; what concessions is he proposing?

Dan Jarvis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It neatly brings me on to the points I am about to cover.
	What I believe is that we and our allies must work closely with Pakistan and that we must address its fears about its relationships with Afghanistan, India, other neighbours—and, crucially, as already mentioned, with the United States. We must do that in a way that acknowledges the particular challenges that the country faces. We must work together to find ways to tackle extremist groups without overly infringing on Pakistani sovereignty. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has made a good point, but the time constraints mean that I will not be able to go into detail now on the questions he asked. I would say, however, that in order to refine UK-Pakistan relations, we must find the balance between respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty and the eradication of
	Islamist extremist networks operating from Pakistan. The threat to both of us from the unchecked rise of extremism is too great to ignore. Perhaps most immediately, Pakistan can play a decisive role in reaching a fair and lasting peace in Afghanistan.
	We are at an important crossroads in our relationship with Pakistan. The death of the head of al-Qaeda is significant, but we must remain engaged: this is a fight for the long term and we must leave those who would attack us in no doubt that we have the stomach for it. We should not stick blindly, however, to the path we have followed up to now. There are real dangers in our current position, but there are also real opportunities. We must be ready to seize them if we are to achieve the peace we all desire.

Roger Gale: In January this year, I had the privilege to visit Pakistan with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. We all know that the danger with such visits is that we travel fast, meet a few people and come back as instant experts. I am aware that many Members know much more about the subject than me, but I feel completely confident in saying what I am about to say.
	Sadly, it has recently become fashionable to criticise Pakistan—to criticise the amount of aid that we give it and to criticise it for being lukewarm in its reaction to the terror threat. The point has been made this evening on a number of occasions that Pakistan has invested more blood and treasure than any other country in the world in the fight against terrorism. We met the Pakistan Minister for Minorities, Dr Shahbaz Bhatti on 24 January; a fortnight later, Dr Bhatti was dead—murdered because of his Christianity and, more particularly, I think, because of his commitment to the cause of moderation. If such people are not to have died in vain, we have to ensure that we stand behind Pakistan and offer such assistance as we can.
	The country has changed its constitution. There will be a shift of power from federal government to the regions. The point has also been made that it is a young country in respect of its population—it is one of the few countries in the world with more young people than old people. The young people we met were hugely enthusiastic for their future, but they were also hopelessly disorganised. In the regions, the democratic processes and the infrastructure are lamentable.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is hugely committed to the cause of education in Pakistan, but we need to go one step further and strengthen the democratic infrastructure, perhaps through institutions such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, so as to enable the transfer of power from the federal government to the regions without extremism taking over. We will report to the Minister next Monday, and we will make those points then, but I want to make them to my right hon. Friend here tonight and to put them on the record.
	I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary Tunisia group. The Arab spring, as it is now called, actually began in midwinter with the jasmine revolution in Tunisia. Since then, the introduction of an interim Government has led to the creation of an election commission, which has set in train the processes for the democratic elections that we hope and believe—
	despite some misgivings—will still be held on 24 July. I say “despite some misgivings”, because the task is herculean. In the time available, the commission must try to create a register and an identification process, and it must try to work out the detail of the election itself. It must establish whether the election will be held in constituency terms or nationally on a proportional-representation basis. As things stand, some 60 parties will be entering the election, which will create huge problems in itself.
	The choice, however, is between action now and delay. Delay will lead to further unrest and further confusion. The consensus seems to be that it is right to move ahead, accepting the fact that the election will probably be ragged around the edges. Those of us who have worked as international election observers know only too well that in developing countries there must be an acceptance of some degree of imperfection. If we judge on the basis of our own methods, perhaps we should not look too closely at the dust in other people’s eyes.
	The important part of the process will be what follows the election. The Government who are elected will again be an interim Government, but they will have been elected. They will be charged with the duty of creating a constitution that will then be taken back to the people for a further election, and only then will the real process of reconstruction start. However, that should not gainsay the fact that Tunisia is, at this moment, open for business. What it needs more than anything else is economic development and investment. The tourism industry is on its knees, but the country is safe and able to receive visitors.
	The other problem that Tunisia has with Europe is that Europe will not take its agricultural goods, which has implications for rural jobs. It is not good enough for France and Italy to complain about the number of migrants from north African countries, while closing their doors to the produce that those countries, especially Tunisia, need to sell in order to create the jobs that will keep migrant workers at home and enable them to grow their own economies.
	The abandoning of the Schengen agreement by France and Italy should come as no surprise to any Member, but it would behove, in particular, the southern states of the European Union to try to create real opportunities, rather than investing cash in programmes that may or may not lead to jobs in the longer term. They should immediately consider the possibility of bringing Tunisia into a customs union, so that it can look to Europe legitimately and play a real part in the development of the Arab spring and of democracy.

Cathy Jamieson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and, in particular, to follow so many hon. Members with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. I do not claim to have such expertise, but it is important to put on record some of my concerns and those conveyed to me by constituents, including women—I note in passing that I am now the only female Member in the Chamber.
	It is important for us to debate a situation that continues to develop on a daily basis in Libya, as well as wider issues relating to the middle east and north Africa.
	There are far too many of those issues for me to be able to cover them in a short speech, so I shall focus on matters involving Libya.
	Like many other Members, I thought long and hard before deciding to support the Government in their Libya mission. I am not naturally inclined towards armed interventions, and many of my constituents expressed concern about what such an intervention would lead to, but—albeit with a heavy heart—I felt it necessary for us to enforce UN security resolution 1973 in view of the rapid deterioration towards a one-sided armed conflict and the humanitarian crisis that was likely to follow, particularly given the number of non-military casualties.
	I have no doubt that the British forces have performed their role in an exemplary and professional fashion, as they always do, and that they have contributed significantly to the protection of the civilian population. As we have already heard, however, the challenge now is to define our future role and establish at what stage we will feel able to withdraw. Regretfully, I have to say that there currently seems to be a lack of strategic direction. In recent weeks, the Government appear to have made tactical and operational decisions that begin to depart from the original mandate of protecting civilians. The Government’s decision to provide telecommunications, body armour and a number of military advisers seems to me, and to many of my constituents, to have more to do with a military situation developing on the ground in Libya than with simply enforcing the resolution. I also regret having to express the view that the Government have failed to communicate to the public, and indeed to Parliament, the exact role of those people in a developing situation. For how long will they be deployed, and how does their role relate to the wider remit of protecting civilians? Those questions remain unanswered.
	It seems that none of the measures represents a breach of the mandate provided by the United Nations and approved by the House, but they suggest a move towards measures that are beyond what I expected in supporting the Government when we debated the issue. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will identify some specific issues and make the case for the strategic role of the advisers in resolving the crisis. Specifically, the advisers are there as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s assertion to the House on 26 April that
	“it is impossible to see a way of securing the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution while Colonel Gaddafi remains.” —[Official Report, 26 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 40.]
	A number of Members have commented on that statement. Is the mission now to remove Gaddafi at all costs, rather than simply to ensure the protection of civilians? If the Foreign Secretary’s statement is informing strategic military decisions, the Government must be absolutely clear and up front. That is vital in the context of some of the comments made today about a possible move towards identifying different targets.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Lady appreciate the distinction between the wishes of the British Government, in terms of someone who is now wanted by the International Criminal Court, and what the UN resolution sanctions in terms of the military mission by the international community? Those are two different things.

Cathy Jamieson: Of course they are two different things, but I have worries, which were identified at the outset of the process, about where we will end up and about the possibility of mission creep. It is important for the Government to continue to report back to those of us who, while supporting the Government, had and still have concerns.
	There may also be a danger that as the conflict has continued, many of us—including the wider public—have become used to seeing images of it on our TV screens. Fewer column inches may have been devoted to reporting the details in the press, causing people to become immune to the process. That is why, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has implied, it is vital for the House to have an opportunity to hear from Ministers regularly, and to be allowed a further vote if measures beyond those outlined in resolution 1973 are considered at any stage. Understandably, the military situation and western involvement in Libya have become the focus of media attention and therefore of public debate, but in the wider region there is also a whole range of other, non-military options, which I hope the Government will support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
	It is important that wherever we are involved in trying to resolve conflict, we support universal suffrage and the democratic process, which is especially the case in countries that are on the brink of a bright new future. It is reassuring that the UK is at the forefront of pressing for European Union action, and that an agreement has been reached on an arms embargo and the revocation of the association agreement that had been put in place with Syria.
	My final point is about the ability of the UK to offer continued commitment to the aims of resolution 1973. The Select Committee on Defence asked whether the UK will remain a full-spectrum force capable of deploying all aspects of military power across the world, and the chiefs of all three services—the British Army, Navy and Air Force—answered no. However, that view seemed to be contradicted by many senior UK officials, such as Britain’s ambassador to the US, who maintained that the UK has emerged from the recent strategic defence review and the ensuing round of spending cuts announced by the Prime Minister in October as a full-spectrum military power. It is important that we understand what effect the cuts are going to have, and what their implications will be for our work in all the areas where we are currently involved.
	In conclusion, I make the following plea. While British troops remain deployed in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is vital that our armed forces are not stretched to breaking point. It is also important that we continue to give humanitarian aid, and I hope that that becomes the focus of our work. I urge the Government to ensure that the focus is on bringing peace in all areas of conflict where we are involved, supporting humanitarian aid and, importantly, returning our armed forces safely to the UK as soon as possible.

John Stanley: In the House on 21 March, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the current violence in north Africa and the middle east:
	“I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 707.]
	I want to focus on one area where I believe that there is a very important lesson to be learned—arms export policy. That question arises because in the two years prior to the Arab spring, under both the current and previous Governments, arms export licences for weapons that can be used for internal repression were granted on an extremely wide scale throughout north Africa and the middle east, and those export licence approvals have been shown to have been grievously mistaken.
	The policy was clearly stated on 18 February by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt):
	“The longstanding British position is clear. We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts or”—
	this is the key policy statement—
	“which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”
	The recent Committees on Arms Export Controls report sets out quarter by quarter since the beginning of 2009 the details of the arms export licences that were approved in each period. That shows, for example, sub-machine-guns and sniper rifles to Bahrain, and components for semi-automatic pistols and sub-machine-guns, artillery computers, combat shotguns, intelligence equipment and small arms ammunition to Libya. Since the publication of that report, the latest quarterly report has been published, taking us up to the last quarter of 2010—in other words, to a matter of two or three weeks before the start of the Arab spring. It shows that even in that period we were exporting equipment for sniper rifles to Bahrain and components for combat aircraft, military equipment for initiating explosives and weapon night-sights to Libya.
	If one Government statement reflects the over-optimism that has afflicted both the current and the previous Governments about the risks that are run in exporting certain types of weapons to authoritarian regimes, it is to be found in the 2008 annual report on strategic arms exports. There was a case study of a licence application for armoured personnel carriers for Libya, which concluded:
	“There remain wider human rights risks in Libya, but it was judged very unlikely that these vehicles would be used to carry out abuses. As a result it was concluded, with reference to the Consolidated Criteria, that there was not a clear risk that these vehicles would be used for internal repression and the licence was approved.”
	I think that conclusion was symptomatic of the policy followed by both Governments.

Martin Horwood: I strongly support many of the points that my right hon. Friend is making, and it is absolutely proper to raise this issue. However, we both welcome the fact that the current Government have revoked more than 150 such arms licences granted by the Labour Government, and we both welcome the fact that this Government are currently actively reviewing the whole policy of arms exports.

John Stanley: That anticipates the point that I am about to make.
	Britain was, of course, by no means the only country to engage in this degree of over-optimism and, as has been said, the Government have sought to retrieve the
	position. First, they have announced the revocation of a substantial number of arms export licences. Indeed, according to the latest figures, between 27 January and 9 March this year more than 150 previously granted arms export licences were revoked. That serves to highlight the scale of the previous misjudgment.
	Why, however, are those revocations limited to just four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain? Why have there been no revocations of arms exports to Syria, for example? Why, too, have there been no revocations of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, whose British-made armoured personnel carriers have rolled into Bahrain and are therefore complicit, as it were, in the appalling abuses of human rights there? Of course, I understand that Saudi Arabia is big money, is big oil, and is useful intelligence, but can the Government really justify such a blatant degree of inconsistency in their revocations policy?
	Secondly, I greatly welcome the review of arms export licences, but it has been initiated only in relation to north Africa and the middle east, while recent events also suggest that there are serious questions to be raised about arms export licence policy for weapons that can be used for internal repression in relation to authoritarian regimes worldwide. Sadly, authoritarian regimes extend from the boundaries of the European Union to the very furthest east. There are too many authoritarian regimes in Africa and some in central and south America. The current review should therefore be extended to cover authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Committees on Arms Export Controls has recommended that, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept that recommendation and the other recommendations in our report.

Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). He and I have served together on the Committees on Arms Export Controls and on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for many years, and he speaks a great deal of sense on arms exports issues.
	Somebody once said, in the context of British politics, “You can be in office and not in power.” That situation clearly applies in a number of countries around the world, but I wish to focus my remarks, as others have done, on what is happening in Pakistan. The fact that Osama Bin Laden apparently lived in Abbottabad with food and access to information, although not to the internet, and was somehow protected, is a matter of deep concern, but I have no doubt that the Government of President Zardari had no knowledge that that was the case. The question for us, which is highlighted in a very good book that came out this week, “Pakistan: A Hard Country” by Anatol Lieven, is about the relationship between the civil society and the political society in Pakistan and the military and intelligence elite that has run that state.
	Anatol Lieven says that:
	“the Pakistani national security state…was born chiefly out of fear of, and hostility to, India. This is felt most strongly in the military and, in the ISI, it is a raging monomania.”
	That sums up the problem. According to an opinion poll of about two years ago, 85% of the Pakistani population want better relations with India. We find the
	same thing when we speak to people in the British-Pakistani and British-Indian community—many of whom, including many of my constituents, have roots in the divided Punjab—and when we go, as I did with the Foreign Affairs Committee five years ago, by road from Amritsar to Lahore, through the Wagah crossing. If we leave aside the symbolism of the soldiers on both sides at the ceremony, we also find the interesting sight of the bearers, who, on the one side, carry sacks of onions on their heads for about a mile and half and, on the other side, carry boxes of dried fruit. This is an international border where people cannot trade by means of vehicles passing through; everything has to be unloaded and then loaded again.
	Economic co-operation between India and Pakistan would be of great benefit to both countries, especially in dealing with Pakistan’s problems arising from its rapidly growing population: it has 180 million people, and that is on the way to becoming 300 million or 350 million. Massive difficulties are also caused by the fact that a disproportionate amount of money in Pakistan is taken up by the national security structure, and because the obsession with India means that it is a state that has in the past, through its Inter-Services Intelligence, sponsored terrorist organisations and insurgent groups in both Afghanistan and India. The democratic and secular forces—the people, including the late Shahbaz Bhatti, to whom reference has been made, who believe in women’s rights and in protecting minorities, and who stand up for ethical values and global values of human rights—are besieged now in Pakistan because of the international context.
	The Pakistani Government and Pakistani politicians can rightly point out that many of the problems they face arise because of the misguided interventions of 25 and 30 years ago, which led to the situation in Afghanistan, where the groups that evolved into the Taliban were developed. However, there was also a Pakistani hand in some of that; they got the money from the United States—from the CIA—it was pushed through the ISI and it went through to people such as Mr Hekmatyar, to what is now the Haqqani network in Afghanistan, and to the Taliban.
	That worm has turned, and the Pakistani state faces enormous threats from those organisations, but it also has its own resilience and ability to fight back. In my opinion, it is good news that Osama Bin Laden was killed and is dead, and however critical we might be of the fact that he was in Pakistan, we need to make an assessment and take a clear view. The Government of Pakistan were not shielding that man, nor were the Pakistani people. That was done by certain rogue elements within their society, and it would be completely wrong to do what some in the United States Congress are calling for and punish Pakistan by cutting off economic assistance and ending co-operation.
	What Pakistan needs today is our solidarity against the terrorist threat it faces. Its secular politicians need our support and encouragement to rebuild the dialogue with India, to resolve the difficulties over Kashmir and to co-operate against the common threats of terrorism which both those countries are facing. That is not going to be easy—the history and the fact that the pain is so deep on both sides means that it will be very difficult—but the alternative is to play into the hands of the extremist groups that wish to foster a failed state, further conflict
	and terrorism. That will not only be destructive to all the values of Pakistan and India, but it will blow back into this country because people here have family roots in that part of the world. We owe it to them, as well as to ourselves, to work in co-operation with Pakistan at this time of great difficulty.

James Arbuthnot: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I agreed with almost everything he said. I agreed with the main thrust of it, and with his point about the essential need for our continued involvement in Pakistan in terms of providing aid and support. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for his concentration on the issue of education in Pakistan. A country that spends only 2% of its gross domestic product on education is one that must cause considerable concern to the rest of the world, as it is doing now.
	I declare my interest as the chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I wish to say two things, which may take me a little time. First, it has become increasingly clear over the past six months that the middle eastern problem is not Israel. When Osama bin Laden was killed a few weeks ago, an important article by Robert Fisk appeared in The Independent, in which he made the point that al-Qaeda’s irrelevance has been shown by the fact that the Arab spring was demanding not more Islamic fundamentalism, but freedoms. It is just as important to note that the Arab spring has not been demanding a change in Palestine, essential though that change is; the Arab spring has been demanding the sort of freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rule of law—that are provided and embodied in Israel. My main initial point about Israel is that it is not the middle eastern problem; the autocratic regimes that have been surrounding Israel are the problem.
	The second issue—it looks as though I shall have plenty of time to finish within my eight minutes—is the rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah. I would like to ask what it means. If it means that Hamas and Fatah will be united on the Fatah way of looking at things—the renunciation of violence, the recognition of Israel, the agreement to maintain and honour previous agreements—it will be a very good thing indeed. If, however, it means that they will be united on the Hamas view of things, that is entirely different. We know about Hamas. In the last month alone more than 120 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, some with 40 km in range. There have been rockets and mortars, and a guided anti-tank missile hit a school bus in Israel and killed a 16-year-old schoolboy. Terrorism sponsored by, perpetrated by and supported by Hamas has killed more than 500 people in Israel since the beginning of 2003.
	If the new Hamas-Fatah organisation follows the Fatah line I will be utterly delighted. That would mean that we could negotiate with Hamas again and that Israel would have a useful negotiating partner, because all these things must be achieved by negotiation and cannot be achieved by force or unilateralism. If, however, the new united organisation follows the Hamas line, the reconciliation will be either meaningless or significantly worse. This is not a various shades of grey issue, but a black and white one.

Mike Gapes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the important consequences of this agreement is that it allows a programme to go forward for democratic elections, hopefully at the end of this year or the beginning of next, that will then allow the Palestinian people as a whole to elect a new Parliament and a new President? That is vital if we are to get serious negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

James Arbuthnot: I agree that that is very important. I asked the Prime Minister a month or so ago whether he was concerned that when the President of the Palestinian Authority called for elections, Hamas immediately rejected that—Hamas having been a democratically elected organisation that renounced democracy once its mandate had expired. I agree, however, that the notion of bringing democracy back to Hamas would be a welcome change.
	Unfortunately, I think there is a risk that in the British Foreign Office the view is that this is a matter of shades of grey as opposed to black and white. For Israel it is not a matter of shades of grey. Israel has been struggling to secure itself and just to exist. When it comes to murdering schoolchildren, which Hamas went in for, that cannot be regarded as shades of grey.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that things such as the killing of 13 people at Qalandiya crossing yesterday by Israeli forces, the continued expansion of settlements and the taking over of Silwan in East Jerusalem need to change in Israel if there is to be any hope of some longer-term peace agreement?

James Arbuthnot: I agree about the settlements, and I have said so in a speech in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman heard me say that in the last speech I made about Israel. As for what happened at the crossing, I think the Government are right to call for restraint on all sides. There seems to me to be something very convenient about Israel moving in to the headlines as soon as there were clashes on the border of Syria and Lebanon. I am profoundly suspicious about what was behind those clashes.
	At a time when the Arab spring is showing that the Arab people are desperate for freedoms, now is not the time for the United Kingdom or the international community to abandon the Quartet’s principles. They must demand that Hamas should renounce violence, recognise the state of Israel and honour the previous agreements.

David Winnick: I listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) with much interest, but there have been many civilian casualties on both sides and innocent people have been killed; indeed, that happened over the weekend, as many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said. What is required is a genuine peace settlement.
	I was not going to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire provoked me. There are only two Members in the House who were here in 1967, when the war took place, and I am one of the two. I expressed my point of view on the situation at the time. With respect to the
	right hon. Gentleman, it is not a question of Israel now fighting for its very existence, but of the absolute refusal of Israel to come to any genuine agreement for a viable and independent Palestinian state. The Israeli settlements that have been built on the west bank surely demonstrate a lack of commitment on the part of Israel to what the international community—including, of course, the United Kingdom—would like to see: a two-state solution.
	We can disagree about Hamas and the rest. Obviously, what Hamas stands for, being basically an Islamic fundamentalist concept, to say the least, is totally alien to everything I believe in. That goes without saying, but in negotiations one deals with one’s enemy. After all, if anyone is says that it is impossible to reach agreement with Hamas, we know that the IRA argued for years that there could be absolutely no solution in Northern Ireland until Britain decided to leave, yet a very different situation emerged. Those who, like the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire, take the Israeli point of view very strongly would do far more good if they could pressurise Israel to recognise that there needs to be a wide-ranging agreement.
	If it was right, in the circumstances of the extermination of millions of people, for Israel to be created by the international community in 1947 and 1948, let us not forget for one moment the tremendous injustice that was done to the Palestinians as a result. The Palestinians were not responsible for what happened to the Jewish people during the second world war.
	I now turn to the question of Libya. I made it clear in my speech on 21 March, in the previous debate on Libya, that I could not support the Government. I hesitated about voting against the motion, and in fact I abstained. I had hesitations during that debate, not because I did not want to see humanitarian action taken—obviously, I wanted help to be given to civilians in Libya who could be at the mercy of Gaddafi; that goes without saying—but I had the feeling that resolution 1973 would in practice result in an attempt at regime change. All that has occurred in more recent weeks, since that debate, has persuaded me that in spite all the denials we heard today from the Foreign Secretary and the rest, at the end of it all what is required is that Gaddafi should abdicate, that there should be regime change and that, if necessary, Gaddafi could be the subject of an assassination attempt.
	I am no apologist for Gaddafi; heaven forbid. I have opposed the regime ever since he took power 32 years ago, as it was obviously based on tyranny and was much involved in international terrorism, as we know. Why on earth should I in any circumstances wish to defend or justify such a regime? But international law does not permit regime change or the assassination of a leader. The remarks of the Army chief, General Richards, over the weekend are bound to cause added worry. What will happen is an escalation of what has been occurring in the air strikes of the past fortnight or so. It is interesting that so many of the Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this debate, most of whom voted with the Government on 21 March, have expressed the same reservations and concern about what is happening in Libya that I am expressing now.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made a very good speech about the selling of arms to authoritarian states. There was hardly
	a word he said, even in his criticism of the previous Government, with which I could disagree. As he pointed out, it is interesting to note that however despicable the Gaddafi regime has been, Britain was selling arms to it right up to the moment before the demonstrations when opposition emerged in Libya. Why did we do that, and why do we sell arms to other states that are based on tyranny? Syria, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a good example of that. I certainly hope that there will be far greater concern about that in future, and that more attempts will be made to ensure that Britain is not involved in selling arms to countries such as Gaddafi’s Libya.
	Turkey has put forward certain proposals regarding Libya that I should have thought it would be useful to try. It has urged an immediate ceasefire and has emphasised the need to start a political process leading to Gaddafi’s leaving office. The Government say that there is no wish on Gaddafi’s part to engage in a genuine ceasefire, but let us test that; let us see. Let us use Turkey’s proposals, which seem worth trying at least, and in so doing save lives.
	Had there been time I would also have discussed Afghanistan and the wish to end as soon as possible the use of British military forces there. In the absence of time, I will simply say again to the Government that although they received support from the overwhelming majority on 21 March, that majority did not support regime change, and that resolution 1973 should not be used for that purpose.

Sajid Javid: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who can always be relied on to make a thoughtful contribution.
	In 1961, a young man, Abdul-Ghani, left his poverty-stricken village in Punjab, Pakistan, for England. He had heard that the mother country, as England was still known at that time, had plenty of jobs, so he decided to try his luck. Like many young Pakistanis arriving in Britain at that time, Abdul-Ghani planned to stay in England for only a few years—just long enough to earn enough money to send back to his siblings so that they could have the education that he never had. He also intended to return home because he loved his homeland. He remembered how, at the age of nine, he had been part of the largest population exchange in history, in which more than 15 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs had tried to find safety in their newly born nation states. To this day, he will never forget the stench of death and the heart-wrenching human misery that he witnessed.
	In the early 1960s, many young Pakistanis such as Abdul-Ghani still harboured huge hopes for their country. They believed in the vision of Pakistan’s founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted a democratic, secular, modern state. As the years passed, Abdul-Ghani, who was by then a very proud bus driver in Rochdale, sadly came to realise that he would not be going back to Pakistan because the country was moving backwards. He gave up on his dreams of returning home and decided that he and his future family would be wise to make their permanent home in England. It is because of that decision that I am able to stand before the House and contribute to this important debate.
	By the 1960s, it was already clear that the ruling bargain in Pakistan had changed. Gone was the dream of a tolerant, democratic and secular nation. In sharp contrast to the situation in neighbouring India, the rules of the game in Pakistan were being set by the Pakistani army. The army allowed the pretence of civilian rule, but everyone knew that it called all the shots. Each year, the army granted itself nearly 25% of the national budget and justified its rule on the grounds that Pakistan needed to confront its real enemy—India. Despite the very real challenges of widespread poverty and illiteracy, with enlightened leadership Pakistan could have taken the path to greater prosperity. That is not just a dream: many Muslim-majority countries have achieved that, including Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. Virtually every leader of Pakistan has failed his people, choosing self-interest over the national interest. They have all too often obscured their own incompetence and deceit by blaming every failure on an external, exaggerated threat. In much the same way, many Arab rulers love to blame Israel for all their problems.
	I was saddened but not surprised that bin Laden was found to be living in Pakistan. Let us be clear. He was not just living in Pakistan: he was a stone’s throw away from the national military academy and just a two-hour drive from Islamabad. I have no doubt that it was just and strategically right for the US to kill bin Laden, and although I do not think that the Pakistani Government were involved in any way or were complicit as a whole, I find it very hard to believe that there were not elements of the Pakistani military intelligence services and some Government officials providing him with safe harbour. To suggest otherwise is frankly laughable. That is why there is no way that Britain’s relationship with Pakistan can remain the same.
	When the Prime Minister visited Pakistan last year, he was right to say that Pakistan looked “both ways” when it came to terrorism. He was also right when he told the House very recently that we cannot afford to turn our back on Pakistan. If we did, the threat to Britain from the emergence of a nuclear-armed failed state in one of the world’s most volatile regions would be far too great. It is in neither Britain’s interest nor Pakistan’s for relations to become more adversarial, but Pakistan’s strategy of being both a friend and an adversary is no longer tenable. That is why we need to take a harder line on Pakistan and demand a lot more in return for our assistance, aid and friendship. The UK and the US should formally present to Pakistan’s leaders any information they have about Pakistani complicity in shielding bin Laden and should demand tough and immediate action. We should demand that Pakistan uproots insurgent sanctuaries, shuts down factories that produce bombs that kill our soldiers, and hunts down leading terrorists who are still at large.
	We also need to start reducing our dependence on Pakistan. First, the international security assistance force should find an alternative to the supply lines that run through Pakistan to Afghanistan, and we should expand alternative supply routes through Azerbaijan and other countries in central Asia. Secondly, NATO and Afghanistan should reach agreement on a longer-term settlement allowing for a small but lasting military presence in Afghanistan. That capability could be indispensible in preventing some of the worst-case scenarios involving Pakistan and its nuclear weapons.
	When it comes to helping Pakistan, our No. 1 focus should be on promoting commerce and education, as they are the only tools to help ordinary, long-suffering Pakistanis to climb out of poverty. Our message should not be that we are abandoning Pakistan, but that we will help Pakistan fight its true enemies—ignorance, illiteracy, corrupt elites and religious conflict. Although the killing of bin Laden was an important success, a greater achievement would be to transform UK-Pakistani relations into a true partnership that fights terrorism and helps ordinary Pakistanis.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome today’s debate and the commitment from the Foreign Secretary that there will be regular reports to the House on the situation in Afghanistan and Libya.
	The uprisings across the whole Arab world are momentous in historical terms and in many ways are a continuation of the uprisings of the 1950s, which were eventually mired in corruption and autocracy in almost every country. What we see now on the streets of so many Arab countries is a thirst for accountable government, economic sustainability and, above all, political freedoms. These developments are to be wholly welcomed, but they are not without their problems. The forces of the state that have sustained dictators in power for a very long time are hitting back in a real and quick way.
	I pointed out in an intervention what was happening in Tunisia, where protesters are being fairly brutally prevented from making their views known. In the same way, progress in Egypt is up and down. Elements of the old regime constantly pop up and try to prevent industrial action by legitimate trade unions and to control society, just as the Mubarak regime did for a very long time. There should be understanding and solidarity.
	While visiting Tunisia earlier this year, I recall talking to a group of young people in the central square in Tunis. It was when the protests were beginning in Libya, and I asked them whether they wanted any outside help. They said no, they did not. Historically, they had had quite enough of French colonialism, and they felt that people in the neighbouring countries had had quite enough of Italian and British colonialism. They wanted to do it themselves.
	Proposing the intervention in Libya and support for the UN resolution, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that that was humanitarian; that it would create a no-fly zone; that it was designed to protect lives; and that it would be within the terms of international law. Listen to his speech today, follow the mood music, follow the statements made by NATO and all the others, and it is clear that the whole intervention is about regime change and occupation. The rush to provide facilities and support for the transitional council, which has renamed itself after its members were called “rebels” for a long time, suggests to me that we are in fact involved in a civil war.
	I am not here, any more than my Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is, to defend the human rights abuses of the Gaddafi regime. I just feel that we have involved ourselves in a civil war, that there are ulterior motives relating to oil and future markets, and that a macabre demonstration is taking place to show the power of various defence systems and strike aircraft.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend had the wisdom to vote against this ill-fated intervention. Does he agree that it is concerning that we are sending so-called advisers to the region? In other interventions of this kind, where advisers go, troops cannot be far behind.

Jeremy Corbyn: The parallel is Vietnam 1963, when several thousand CIA advisers descended on that country. That eventually turned out to be 500,000 US troops, 100,000 of whom died there. A million Vietnamese also died in that conflict. We should be slightly more careful, more sanguine and less gung-ho about the process.
	Turkey has tried to bring about a peace process, as has the African Union, but what hope is there for a peace process and a diplomatic settlement if the language coming from NATO and others is, “We are going to win this conflict”? That is the subtext.

Paul Flynn: It is an extremely rare event when I disagree with my hon. Friend on this subject, but does he understand the predicament of many of us in the House when that vote was taken on whether we should intervene? If we did not intervene, we were leaving the people of Benghazi defenceless against the bloodthirsty threats of Gaddafi.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have no doubt that the forces of the Gaddafi regime were being very brutal to people in Benghazi, just as the forces in Tunisia and Egypt were brutal to people in those countries. If the west was serious about bringing about a diplomatic solution in Libya, the Secretary-General of the UN and Heads of State would have gone there and there would have been a real effort, but the subtext the whole time, by Sarkozy particularly, was that they wanted military intervention and a no-fly zone. I voted against it because I do not believe that the intervention was as high-minded as my hon. Friend suggests it may have been, and many Members who voted for the motion on that day are having some doubts about what went on on that occasion.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose —

Jeremy Corbyn: I will not give way any more as I have had my allotted injury time, if the House understands what I mean.
	I want to mention two other topics. I believe that there are double standards at work. The west has intervened in Libya, where there are large amounts of oil and where, under Tony Blair, a deal was done with the Government and arms were sold. They were being sold right up to the point when NATO was preparing to go in there. Interestingly, the arms sales there and in every other country in the region are, yes, planes, missiles and radar systems, but in every case they include anti-personnel equipment for crowd control, to deal with civil disorder and control populations.
	That is what is now happening in Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia. Other Members have drawn attention to what is going on there. I was with the Bahraini opposition groups in London last week. I first met Bahraini opposition groups at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they were complaining about British support for the regime, the suspension of the constitution and the lack of democracy
	in Bahrain. That has not stopped this country doing a lot of business with Bahrain. It has not stopped arms exports and oil imports from Bahrain. I would like condemnation of the violence of the Bahrain and the Saudi regimes equal to the condemnation of the Libyan regime and, rightly, of the Syrian regime for what it is doing.
	My last point concerns Palestine. Yesterday, on the anniversary of Nakba, the day on which the Palestinian people were driven out of what is now the state of Israel to become that vast diaspora, was the occasion for demonstrations outside the Kalandia crossing. Thirteen Palestinians were shot dead. Last year or the year before, Operation Cast Lead over Gaza brought about the deaths of nearly 1,500 people in that bombardment. Routine operations by Israeli forces over Gaza result in deaths. Rocket attacks and suicide attacks also result in deaths.
	However, there seems almost to be an approval of Israel and its perceptions of its own security needs to the exclusion of all understanding of just how brutal the regime has been towards Palestinians. If someone tries to travel through the west bank and sees the settlements, the settler-only roads, the checkpoints and the abuse that Palestinians receive every day from Israeli border guards, they will understand why people feel so angry. They will see the walls being built, the wells being taken away and the opportunity for economic life being removed. The people in Gaza are living in an open prison and young people are growing up living their lives vicariously through TV and computer screens because they cannot work and they cannot travel—they cannot do anything. They get very angry. There must be a recognition of the rights and needs of Palestinian people.
	Likewise, the huge Palestinian diaspora, largely living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, but also all over the world, feels very angry. On a visit to Lebanon earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who led the delegation, and I met an old man living in Shatila refugee camp—hon. Members will remember the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. A man in his mid-80s could remember with absolute precision every tree, house and well of his Palestinian village, which he was driven out of when the state of Israel was established. Is he determined to go back? Yes. Does he think he has a right to go back? Absolutely. Do the people in that camp think they have a right to return? They absolutely do. This anger among Palestinian people is a cause that will go on for a very long time.
	The result of 1948 might have been seen as a reasonable diplomatic solution to the massive and awful experience that Jewish people experienced before and during the second world war, but the residue of the ill-treatment of the Palestinian people lives on. The state of Palestine needs to be supported and the Palestinian people need to be recognised. If we do not do so, the cause will go on for a very long time. We cannot just sell arms to Israel and pretend that what is happening to the Palestinians is nothing to do with us.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am concerned that everyone who wishes to speak in the debate should get in. The only way we can do that is by reducing the time limit on speeches to six minutes, in fairness to Members who have been waiting.

Nicholas Boles: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is just my luck to have the axe fall as I rise.

David Winnick: It was nothing personal.

Nicholas Boles: I am not so sure about that. Nevertheless, it is fortuitous that I find myself following the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), whose speech I listened to with great interest, because I hope to shed some other light on the situation. I should start by declaring two interests. First, I do some work with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I very recently tied the knot with my Israeli partner.
	I am afraid that it is with sadness, but not surprise, that I find myself speaking a day after another depressing turn in the wheel of futility and violence that characterises the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. All Members of the House—from the hon. Member for Islington North, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) to all Government Members—want to help them break out of this morbid cycle, but we will do so, as the hon. Member for Islington North said, only if we understand the fears and motivations of all parties in the dispute and grasp the way they perceive their situation, not how we perceive it.
	Other hon. Members are more qualified than I am to shed light on the Palestinian point of view—the hon. Gentleman has done so, as I hope and trust will other hon. Members. I want to try to contribute a little understanding of the Israeli point of view. I will start by asking the House a question. Why is it that young Israeli men and women, such as my partner, are willing to do three years’ military service at a time when young men and women in Britain are working, studying, travelling and having fun? They are not compelled to do so, as they can choose a civilian form of service. It is not possible to say that Israel is some latter-day militaristic Prussia. Anyone who has been to Israel will have to testify to the fact that Israelis are a remarkably individualistic, even hedonistic, bunch of people. It is not even possible to say that somehow they are all brainwashed into thinking that this is something they must do. Israeli politics is one of the most disputatious and argumentative politics one can find, and there are many groups in Israeli politics preaching peace and arguing for a change in the pattern.
	So why are they doing it? The reason is simple. There is nothing more important for my partner and people of his age, and for his parents and grandparents, than the security of the state of Israel because it is the first place in 2,000 years that Jews have been able to call home. The key to understanding Israel’s actions is this: what will it mean for their perceptions of their long-term security? In this place, such an obsession with security may seem overblown, but we are an island, we have water all around us, we have been here for thousands of years, and I remember that about 70 years ago we seemed to take threats to that security pretty seriously indeed.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman, although I disagree with him, is making the most interesting speech. I now understand the personal factor involved, but there is no
	criticism in what I have just said. Is not the best security for Israel—I have already indicated my support for Israel as a state, pre-1967 borders—to find and be willing to reach an accommodation with the Palestinian people, who are not going to go away?

Nicholas Boles: I am very grateful for that intervention, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and share his analysis. The vast majority of Israeli people also think that a two-state solution is the long-term source of their security, but they will grasp it only if there are guarantees that that state will not threaten the long-term security of Israel.
	It is not unreasonable to ask for that when only five years ago Israel withdrew from Gaza and Gaza immediately fell into the hands of an organisation that is directly sponsored by Iran and wants to wipe Israel from the map. It is not unreasonable when Lebanon’s Government have been brought down and the new Prime Minister has been put in place by an organisation whose leader only yesterday said that we need to drive Israel into the sea, and that no treaties, no borders, no agreements will stop that happening. It is not unreasonable for the Israeli people to have that expectation. I wish that they might be willing to make more of a risk, but my wishes, and our wishes, carry no weight.
	We must provide guarantees of security, which means, first, that the Palestinian state cannot have a military force, because if it does there will be no agreement, ever, not in our lifetime, our children’s or our grandchildren’s; secondly, that the neighbours of Israel will have to agree to recognise the existence and legitimacy of the state of Israel; and thirdly, that we in Europe and America will have to provide the kind of security guarantees that we have provided each other over the past 60 years.
	That, in my honest judgment, is the only way in which we will bring the Israeli people to a table where we will be asking them to make an enormous compromise for their security. It is a compromise that, I agree, is necessary and vital to the interests of the Palestinian people and the interests of justice, but if we want to achieve a result we have to recognise what it will take, and deal with that.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and may I offer the congratulations of the House on his recent civil partnership? I am disappointed that he did not invite me to the event: after all, we share offices in Norman Shaw North and Leicester is not that far from Grantham—I would have made the journey.
	I say to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) that I am glad, as I think is the whole House, that Abdul Ghani decided to stay in Britain rather than go back to Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman made a forceful and important contribution, and throughout the entire year of his being a Member I am sure his constituents have been extraordinarily proud of his contribution.
	I always use opportunities such as this to talk about Yemen, and I make no apology to the House for doing so. I was born in that country and chair the all-party group on Yemen. I always start my contributions to such debates by saying that Yemen is in crisis, but it really is in crisis. There is a deep humanitarian crisis affecting Yemen. Some 40% of the country live on
	under £1.25 a day, one third of its people are unemployed and 7 million literally cannot find anything to eat each day. The situation that led to the uprising has caused the displacement of 330,000 people in the north of the country. As a matter of urgency, therefore, we need to continue the work that was started under the previous Government, through the Friends of Yemen procedure, and to give Yemen the support that it needs.
	I am delighted to see the Secretary of State for International Development here today. I have known him for 35 years, and he is responsible for giving me my first political speech when he presided over the debating society that we both belonged to; he probably regrets it now. In the work that he has done, he has been an outstanding International Development Secretary. I know that there are many countries and that the budget is limited, but it is very important to focus on Yemen, which is one of the poorest countries on earth. It does not have the political capacity to punch above its weight as other countries have done, and it does not have the focus of the international community. That is why it is important that we should give it as much help as we can.
	On the political side, tomorrow there will be a mass demonstration in Sana’a, and the predictions are that even more people will die unless there is restraint on all sides. So far, 170 people have been killed in the uprising. When I spoke in an Adjournment debate on Yemen a few weeks ago, I believed that we were near a solution, and I think that that was the Foreign Secretary’s view as well. The Gulf Co-operation Council had negotiated an agreement with President Ali Abdullah Saleh that he would stand down in 30 days. That agreement was also adhered to by the opposition. Everyone agreed that there was a process for the resignation of the President, with all the dignity of a person who has occupied that post for 32 years, and that a new Government would take over. This did not happen. It is vital that we provide not only humanitarian relief but political support. I have urged on the Government and the Prime Minister the need to appoint an envoy who will be able to bring all sides together; it could be an EU envoy or someone from the United Nations. After all, we are proposing to do this in other countries. I believe that Yemen can be saved from civil war if we are able to provide that political support.
	Why is it in our interests to support Yemen? Why do we want to keep the country as one? The reason is the power that al-Qaeda has in Yemen. A lot of reference has been made to the death of Osama bin Laden, but the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anwar al-Awlaki, is still in Yemen. Though born in the United States, he is of Yemeni descent. According to the Pentagon, he is more dangerous, as a person, than Osama bin Laden was. It is therefore in our interests to ensure that the country remains stable and united, that humanitarian support is given, and that the security situation in that whole area is not infected by the break-up of this impoverished country.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I am going to talk about
	Israel and the middle east and, more substantially, about the dangers posed to regional and international security by a nuclear-armed Iran.
	I will not reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), but I am wary of the rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah given that the aim of many individuals in those organisations is to move towards unilateral and incremental recognition of Palestinian statehood rather than the alternative—a round-table debate and discussion among all parties, including the United Nations and the European Union, towards a negotiated settlement, which would mean a two-state solution that is viable and sustainable in terms of the creation of a Palestinian state.
	It is very important that we support the courageous stand of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in his efforts, because Hamas has consistently repudiated the Quartet principles, including the recognition of Israel, the renunciation of violence, and the acceptance of all previous agreements. Indeed, it has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Just last month, after the signing of the agreement, the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, said:
	“The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel.”
	I see ominous developments in the mixing of the Hamas forces—with their terrorist activists—and the police service of the Palestinian Authority, which is controlled by Fatah. That is the political context in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must reiterate the Prime Minister’s undertaking to the Community Security Trust that we must continue the dialogue with all parties and that:
	“The alternative to compromise is that moderates will always lose out.”
	Iran is a state that espouses a jihadist, anti-Semitic, militant theology. It is a leading sponsor of state terrorism across the middle east. Furthermore, it wishes to challenge the United States and undermine the historic undertaking of the Baghdad pact of the 1950s, through which the United States sought to support moderate Arab states. There is no doubt that the Iranian regime not only sees itself as the pre-eminent regional power seeking hegemony in the middle east, but is developing a supra-conventional nuclear missile capacity to consolidate that hegemony and become a rival to the United States in global terms.
	Iran is close to weaponised nuclear capability, and to being able to move, via a breakout position, from the conversion of low-enriched uranium to high-enriched uranium at the minimum 90% level. Once the regime has achieved that, weaponisation can be achieved relatively simply. Much of that has been achieved with the help of North Korea, which has provided enrichment technology and, for hard currency, highly sophisticated centrifuges from its large, modern uranium enrichment plant at Yongbyon.
	The Obama Administration are committed to this issue and have adopted a policy of sanctions, particularly through UN Security Council resolution 1929 of June 2010, and active diplomacy and engagement. The problem, as ever, is a lack of consensus in the United Nations—the P5 plus Germany—and the European Union. The next step must be the consideration of more draconian and targeted sanctions. I concede that diplomatic engagement will assist reformists in Iran such as Khatami, Rafsanjani and the fledgling green movement, but we cannot rule
	out the chance that military action may be necessary. Make no mistake, within two years it will be possible for Iran’s Sejil 2 multi-stage solid propellant missiles to travel a range of 3,000 km, which would reach most of continental Europe. Iran is well advanced in uranium enrichment, weaponisation and ballistic missile development.
	A nuclear Iran would destroy the policy objective of global non-proliferation and semi-permanently destabilise the middle east, with countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and smaller Arab states seeking nuclear parity. That argument is enunciated in a report entitled “Global Trends 2025” by the National Intelligence Council. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran presents a clear and present danger to Israel and to regional stability, and it is too great a risk. The European Union, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency must rise to the challenge of preventing that prospect from coming to fruition.

Paul Flynn: As the proud son of a soldier who was grievously injured on a battlefield and later cheated out of his pension by an ungrateful Government, giving him a sense of grievance and injustice that he took to his early grave at the age of 43, I do not need any instructions on the need for a military covenant from the Government. However, I believe that the military covenant should have as its first sentence the obligations of the Government, and it should read that they guarantee never to send our armed forces into conflict for causes that are avoidable or vainglorious. Earlier, I was accused of being a pacifist for suggesting that, but I point out that I have supported with my vote or voice all the conflicts and military interventions in which we have been involved over the past 24 years, except for two. Those were the ones that conflicted with what I hope will be the first line of the covenant: the second Iraq war and our intervention in Helmand province in 2006.
	In the case of the Iraq war, Labour Members were bribed, bullied and bamboozled with a three-line Whip into voting for the war. To the great credit of 139 of us, we resisted that. In the case of Helmand, in March 2006 the total number of British soldiers who had died in Afghanistan, after five years there, was seven, only two of whom had died in conflict. It was said that to go into Helmand was to stir up a hornet’s nest, and it was compared with the futility of the charge of the Light Brigade. We have now lost not two but 365 of our brave soldiers, and I believe we have achieved very little for that. We are perhaps coming to consider why we went in there.
	I wish to mention some points that give reason for optimism. On a point of order last Thursday I mentioned a story in The Daily Telegraph that gave us some hope, and I raised it again with the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. It stated that a decision was going to be taken within a matter of days that would bring 450 of our troops home from Afghanistan. As a result of that point of order, I had a stream of messages from wives, grandfathers and other relatives of soldiers out there saying, “For goodness’ sake, keep asking this question. Keep putting pressure on.” The character of the conflict in Afghanistan at the moment is such that they do not feel that the risk that their loved ones are taking is justified. There is good reason for that.
	Will the Government please learn the lesson? We have never asked the Taliban why they are killing our soldiers. It is always easier to go on repeating the old lies than to reveal the new truth. We need to know why they are killing our soldiers—is it because, when they have killed them all, they want to come over to London and Newport to blow up people on our streets? Or is it because we are there as the ferengi, the foreigners, and it is their sacred religious duty to kill our troops in the same way that their fathers did the Russians, and as their great-grandfathers and all the previous generations have done? The great lesson of the recent actions is that the number of deaths that we have suffered has gone down greatly, not because the Taliban are slightly less wicked than they were, but because we are not in the north of Helmand. The sooner we make our exit, the better.
	Another serious point is that as the rate of deaths has gone down, an increasing proportion of them have been among the immensely brave people who dismantle improvised explosive devices. The justification for taking the great risk of dismantling them rather than blowing them up, which would of course be perfectly safe, is to capture the members of the Taliban who constructed the IEDs. Details can be found such as fingerprints and so on, so that the Taliban who made them can be captured and put in prison. We know what happened recently—500 prisoners escaped. Those who risked their lives to ensure that those Taliban bomb makers were put in prison will now question whether their sacrifice was necessary. I urge the Government to re-examine their tactic and, instead of risking more lives by dangerously dismantling IEDs to capture Taliban who are detained for a very short time, to consider blowing up the IEDs.
	I am hoping that there is a truth in what the Foreign Secretary expressed today, and that President Obama and the Prime Minister make a statement on making a start on the only sensible thing that we can do: bringing our people home. The question by which the Government should be haunted is the one that troubled Senator Kerry in Vietnam in 1971: who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a mistake?

Christopher Pincher: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is not in the Chamber. I learned tonight that the hon. Member for Walsall North entered the House before I was born, but if the clarity and passion of his speech is anything to go by, he will almost certainly still be here long after I am dead. He spoke about Libya, which I shall speak about, but from a different point of view— I do not share his outlook.
	Since the insurgents began their campaign against Gaddafi some three months ago, they have scored a remarkable victory, in as much as they have built around themselves a tremendous international coalition. Something like 17 countries are contributing to the Libya campaign, and many more provide overflight rights, yet that military capability, which has undoubtedly reduced the opportunity for Gaddafi to strike against civilians with his tanks and heavy weaponry and stopped his using air power against them, has not removed him. While he is still there, he presents a terrible threat to civilians, as he has rather chillingly said. Anybody who calls their people “rats” cannot
	“live in the hearts of millions”
	other than as a feared and loathed object.
	We have reduced Gaddafi’s military capability by something like a third, but that means that two thirds of it remains. His ability to strike at the insurgents is greater than their ability to defend themselves. As long as that position obtains, he will go on fighting. There was a striking piece the other day in The New York Times on the hidden workshops of Misrata, which describes the insurgents’ position. Men who a few months ago were welders or electricians now run makeshift military workshops, putting armour plating on pick-ups, cannibalising captured machine guns and building do-it-yourself rocket-propelled grenades. They do not have munitions know-how or the tools with which to do the job. They scrape explosives out of shell canisters to reuse, because they do not have supplies. They have nothing other than what they make themselves or that they capture from Gaddafi.
	Is it therefore any wonder that the insurgents’ battle is desperate, bloody and very slow? That is why I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that we need to move to bring the conflict to a conclusion. If we have a stalemate in Libya, and a failed state, torn in two, with factions fighting one another, we risk a Somalia-type situation. We also risk people in this country becoming tired and bored with a drawn-out campaign. We therefore need to take on board what General Richards, who is a thoughtful man, has said, and acknowledge what the Foreign Secretary has said on intensifying our military, diplomatic and economic campaign to remove Gaddafi from power. A few men in workshops—a few enterprising rebels—are not enough to do the job that needs to be done.
	If we cannot, within the bounds of UN Security Council resolution 1973, put boots on the ground—I agree that we should not do that—or give military matériel directly to the insurgents, it seems to me that we can at least release frozen Libyan assets to the national transitional council. We have effectively recognised it; it has its own defence minister; and Baroness Ashton has set up her EU legation in Benghazi. Hundreds of millions of dinars are locked in this country and should be released to the NTC for it to spend as it wishes, whether on utilities in Benghazi to look after its people or, if it wishes, on the military campaign against Gaddafi.
	The balance is already tipping in favour of the insurgents, but it is taking a long time and needs to be tipped more quickly. In Misrata, we have a refugee crisis. There are electricity cuts, and oil, food and medical supplies are running out. We have seen people migrating from Libya, causing friction on the country’s borders and friction between Italy and France. If we are to raise the siege of these cities, if we are to stem the migration from Libya and if we are to demonstrate to people at home that we can prosecute a compassionate and successful war to a quick conclusion, we need to move to remove Gaddafi, either through allied effort or by giving the Libyans the means to do so themselves. The status quo is not an option.

Yasmin Qureshi: When the tragedy of 11 September occurred, I was working for the United Nations mission in Kosovo. I was in the
	region of Mitrovica, which is divided by a bridge. Across the bridge, I could see Serbian Orthodox Christians burning American flags in jubilation at the events unfolding in America. On 2 May, I saw similar signs of jubilation in America after the death of Osama bin Laden. It is important not to confuse the desire for retribution with the desire to defeat an enemy. Because terrorism partakes of both crime and war, it is perfectly natural, and perhaps legitimate, to have both these attitudes towards Osama bin Laden—to think that we had to disable him, and to think that he deserved to die. However, Milosevic, who killed 100,000 Bosnians, was tried at The Hague.
	His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, has said:
	“I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances”.
	It is deeply troubling if we are moving to a global assassination policy for our enemies. Surely, the norm must be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest and trial. Such a trial would have had the benefit of laying out before the world the evil of terrorism. It would have peeled away the mystique of bin Laden and shown al-Qaeda to be banal and ridiculous.
	In recent weeks, a blizzard of questions and fingers have been pointed at the legitimacy of Pakistan as an ally. I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who seemed to suggest that more questions should be asked of Pakistan, although I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Pakistan’s commitment to the international coalition against terrorism since 9/11. Pakistan has become the victim of an almost daily onslaught of suicide bombings in the very heart of its country. Just yesterday a suicide bomb killed 18 people. The US-led drone attacks continue to take civilian lives, resulting in a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
	Pakistan’s efforts since 2002 have cost it 30,000 civilian casualties, 5,000 security personnel casualties, and the devastation of property and infrastructure. Over the past nine years, its economy has borne the loss of more than $35 billion. The war on terror and the rehabilitation of internally displaced people has consumed a huge amount of the Government’s financial resources and halted economic growth. Unemployment is high, which is triggering other social problems and putting pressures on successive Governments.
	The obligation to focus on security has contributed to a continuing failure to invest in key areas of public provision, such as education and health, and assisted the military and intelligence sectors in retaining power and influence in Pakistan’s political system. There may be some rogue elements in Inter-Services Intelligence, but to tarnish the whole of the ISI, the army and the Government of Pakistan by suggesting that they are not trustworthy is an insult to the people of Pakistan, including the civilian population, who suffer on a daily basis from atrocities that those of us sitting in this country cannot even imagine.
	Many have mentioned the aid given to Pakistan over the past 12 years, which amounts to about $10 billion. However, the USA has spent $146 billion on this war on terror. In terms of loss—and, indeed, the near-destruction of Pakistan—$10 billion is chickenfeed. It does not even start to compensate Pakistan for the breadth of destruction that it has suffered. Let us remember that until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan—then we had
	11 September—Pakistan had no quarrels or squabbles with Afghanistan. It got involved in the war in Afghanistan only because historically it was a US ally. Therefore, it is completely wrong for everyone to start pointing the finger at Pakistan, a country that is suffering the most.

Nicholas Boles: I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech so much that I want to give her a bit of injury time. Will she please continue?

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
	I was also a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about Pakistan’s supposedly imagined problems with India. At the end of the day, each nation state is interested in its own interests. However, when two countries have gone to war on two occasions, as Pakistan and India have, when India supported the breakaway of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, and when every year it releases flood waters from dams, causing flooding in Pakistan, it is naive to say that Pakistan’s perceived security problem is an apparition. Rather, it is real. Indeed, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who is not normally pro-Pakistan, touched on Pakistan’s security in an article last week.
	In all these wars that are taking place across the world, we lost the plot in the graveyard of empires, turning the hunt for the now largely irrelevant inventor of global jihad into a war against tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents who have little interest in al-Qaeda, but much enthusiasm for driving western armies out of their country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to the ferengi, and that is exactly what is going on. The fact is that we are interfering in Afghanistan, while Pakistan, as an ally of the west, is having to pay the price for our war on terror.

John Glen: I want to take this opportunity to make some observations about the situation in Libya and Syria, and to address the wider issue of British foreign policy in that rapidly changing part of the world. Our foreign policy is perhaps seen as one of intervening when we can, but not always where we should. There is a perception that the moral component of our motivation or justification for intervention does not always seem to apply everywhere with the same degree of seriousness. When it comes to that part of the world, I do not see an appetite in either this House or the country at large to seek out theatres of war. However, I seek to discern some consistency, even if the consistent application of principles will not mean that the same action is taken in every country.
	Back on 21 March, I supported the implementation of the no-fly zone, which seemed entirely appropriate, not simply from the perspective of seeking to prevent mass slaughter in Benghazi, but on the understanding that all diplomatic efforts and avenues had been exhausted. Walking away when an evil tyrant was about to murder his own people would have been an abdication of responsibility by the international community. At the same time, however, I listened to the many excellent speeches in the Chamber, and the many warnings, especially from some of those hon. Members who are present this evening, who feared that the solution would not be quick and easy. Sure enough, it has proved not to be.
	I am slightly concerned about the way in which the debate has unfolded over the past eight weeks. Nowhere in the UN Security Council resolution does it prescribe a time frame. There was a great expectation that the operation would all be over immediately and that everything would be fine, but that was never my expectation when I voted for the no-fly zone on 21 March. Across the House, however, there seems to be a great need to bring the operation to a close, as though the international community’s other weapons—diplomacy, economic sanctions and exerting our influence over what other countries in the region do—will have no effect. I was never tempted to assume that Gaddafi would quickly emigrate to Venezuela, or that his iron grip on his media would somehow dissipate overnight. It is true that he enjoys widespread support in Tripoli today, but there are horrendous things happening in Misrata. This is a moving situation, despite the notion that the world somehow stopped on 21 March.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. All wars have to end with some kind of political settlement and some kind of deal. Does he think that it might not be the west that brings about such a settlement, and that an effective diplomatic intervention from the African Union, the Arab League, the Turkish Government or someone else would be more likely to stop the bloodshed and bring about some form of peace?

John Glen: Quite possibly; that is my point. Given recent events, I believe that the notion that we can bring the situation in Libya to a neat, precise conclusion by the extension of targets will prove erroneous.
	These operations have significant implications for our armed forces. Last week, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, interviewed the heads of the three services. It was quite clear, when we read between the half-answers and the attempts not to address the issue directly, that all the services are under massive strain. It will be an abdication of responsibility if the Government do not address that point and allocate appropriate resources. I was very concerned to hear that there is to be a review of defence expenditure over the next three months, as we try to squeeze out more resources. Concern was expressed following the strategic defence and security review about putting off decisions on expenditure until future years.
	We need to deal with the reality, and a number of scenarios could evolve. We could find ourselves in a perpetual stalemate. Alternatively, we could have a little more humility about the way in which this awful situation could be resolved, and realise that it will not happen very quickly. We must realise that a change in regime achieved by the rising up of internal forces against Gaddafi is hardly likely to happen in just a few weeks or months, given the grip that he has had on his country over so many years. It is necessary for us to maintain the current posture and continue to develop diplomatic pressure and the role of the regional players. Yes, it is messy and uncomfortable, but it is right to hold the line and to continue to strengthen and broaden the base of support. We must continue to show resolve and to provide as much support as possible. It is also clear that going down the route of putting boots on the ground is never going to be acceptable in the current environment.
	We acted on the basis of stopping an evil man murdering his people. We may find the process since then rather uncomfortable, but it is not one from which we can pull away.
	Some parallels have been drawn with Syria. There, we have seen numerous efforts taken to impose travel bans, to freeze assets, to provide medical supplies and so forth. There, too, the answer is diplomacy and securing concessions one by one rather than necessarily threatening military action. The reality is that each country in the region is different, which means we cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy; we need the slow, sober, determined, persistent and measured policy that this Government are undertaking. We need to recognise that we do not have the right or the means to solve this problem overnight.

Diane Abbott: I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Before going any further, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on what I thought was an important and brave speech. I am going to touch briefly on the Israel-Palestine question, on Afghanistan and then, of course, Libya.
	On the Israel-Palestine question, I cannot add much to what many others have said, but let me say this. I have heard Conservative Members say that we do not understand the Israelis’ wish for security. I was a Member of this House at the end of the ’80s, when an IRA bombing campaign on the mainland was still happening and I remember Mrs Thatcher being blown up in the Grand hotel in Brighton. I also heard the Canary Wharf bomb going off from my kitchen in the east end of London, so do not tell those of us who lived through that era that we do not take security issues seriously.
	The proposition was put forward that Israel wants all these triple locks, guarantees and so forth before it will move forward. What triple lock guarantees did John Hume of the Social Democratic and Labour party have before he opened the first tentative negotiations with the IRA back in the ’80s? What triple lock guarantees did Nelson Mandela have when he was in prison and first opened overtures to the apartheid regime? The truth is that in the most bloody, difficult and seemingly intractable situations that we have seen in my lifetime, people have had to be prepared to go forward without the triple lock guarantees about which some Members have spoken, but with a will to bring about peace. As long as Israel believes that it has the unconditional support of the United States and Britain, it will continue to shelter behind the notion of triple lock guarantees.

Nicholas Boles: I accept what the hon. Lady says, but does she accept that there was no question in the Irish situation of the people of this country being driven out of this country by those in the IRA who were fighting us? They wanted us to get out of what they perceived as their country; they were not trying to deny our right to be here. The fundamental situation faced by Israel is that some, though not all, of its neighbours believe that Israel should not exist and that all its people should be driven into the sea. That poses a security risk of a quite different quality.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman should speak to some of my friends in the Democratic Unionist party about how they perceived their security as part of Britain in the ’80s.
	Let me move on and deal with Afghanistan. I have been fortunate enough to visit Afghanistan and to meet, talk and stay with our troops there. I was very struck by the bravery of our ordinary soldiers. Not many people realise that the level of mutilations—not just death—is far higher in Afghanistan than anywhere else our armed forces have been sent since the second world war. In talking to ordinary troops—which Ministers and shadow Defence Ministers do not necessarily do—I found that those who had been on two or three tours of duty said that they were regarded as liberators on their first tour, but were now regarded as an occupying force. Members who are familiar with our history will know that no British occupying force has won a war in Afghanistan since the 19th century. [Hon. Members: “We didn’t win that one, either.”] No, we did not. The idea that there is a military solution to what is going on in Afghanistan has a basis in history, but no basis in fact.
	When my party was in government Ministers often presented, as Ministers do now, the notion that we were waiting for the Afghan police and armed forces to be ready to take over, but if we wait for that we will still be there in a hundred years. We must act decisively and stop making the mistake that we made with, for instance, the south Vietnamese: the mistake of propping up a regime that needs not to be propped up, but to face reality.
	It seems to me that the best thing we could do for our brave soldiers who have lost their lives and limbs fighting this war is to use the occasion of the elimination of bin Laden—whatever we think of the circumstances—to do what we should have done before, and withdraw from Afghanistan. Let us by all means give that country support with development and nation-building, but let us stand back and withdraw from military intervention that history tells us is doomed.
	I voted for the intervention in Libya, but I did so with a heavy heart. I was present for the debate—because I think that one should take part in debates on such important occasions—and I was persuaded that unless we intervened as the Government suggested, the civilians of Benghazi would meet a horrible fate. However, a number of developments in Libya since then have been extremely disappointing. For instance, where is the Arab League? I was in the Chamber when we were promised that we would have its support, and that we would be fighting alongside Arab troops. Where are they? We have sold those people billions of pounds-worth of arms. What has happened to the arms, the aeroplanes and the armaments? Where are they? This has the look and the feel of a straightforward western bombardment of a north African country, and I must tell the House that that is not sustainable politics. Where is the Arab League, and how can it be persuaded to shoulder its responsibility in relation to Libya?
	I am also concerned about the sending in of advisers. Where advisers go, can troops be far behind? As one who sat through the entire debate on Libya, I am clear about the fact that there is no will in the House to become involved in a land war in north Africa, and as it happens, I do not believe that there is a will among the
	British public—Labour, Conservative and all points between—to become involved in such a war. I sincerely hope that we shall not see a further escalation of the Libyan intervention without returning to the House for a full debate.
	Was it Walpole who said, “They are ringing the bells today, but tomorrow they will be wringing their hands”? I believe that unless we adopt a more decisive approach to what is happening in Afghanistan and do not simply allow ourselves to be sucked in, the British public—however much they appreciated the humanitarian impulse that led us into Libya—will be wringing their hands tomorrow.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I agreed with some of her analysis, although by no means all of it.
	As we meet here tonight, civilians in Libya continue to become victims of a brutal regime that is showing no humanity in its efforts to impose its will on the Libyan people. The contrast between the cowardice of Gaddafi and the courage of his people could not be greater. While he continues to hide behind mercenaries and soak himself in delusional rhetoric in his compound, the vast majority of the Libyan people are standing in hope, in the open, and poorly armed, against him. Like all tyrants, he has lost his grip on reality. He is alone, and lost in his own propaganda.
	When I look at the faces of the men and women fighting Gaddafi, I see a yearning for freedom and a grasping for dignity, pride and self-determination. All those are the antithesis of what Gaddafi represents. The only person he is fooling with his insane rhetoric is himself. He is hated by his people, he has lost legitimacy, he is shortly to become a wanted war criminal, and it is now a question of when, not if, he must go.
	Against that backdrop, I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who continue to execute the tasks set by the Government with the professionalism that we have come to expect from the best armed forces in the world. I remain in awe of their selfless determination and courage. In putting themselves in harm’s way to protect innocent people, they are standing up for the very best traditions of our nation, and they should rightly be proud of the work they are doing on behalf of their country.
	Unlike the hon. Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I remain convinced of the legitimacy of the steps the international community is taking. We could not have stood by and watched Benghazi entered by Gaddafi’s murderous thugs. We could not have watched from the sidelines and merely grimaced at the slaughter that would inevitably have followed.
	I fear that we are witnessing Syria begin the slide into the same violence and bloodshed that we have seen so dramatically in Libya. The United Nations estimates that over the last two months about 700 innocent civilians have been killed and hundreds more detained by the Syrian security services. We have seen their cities shelled by tanks, and troops conduct house-to-house searches to arrest and intimidate protesters. In Syria, as in the early days in Libya, people are standing up unarmed,
	with only an idea to inspire them: the idea of freedom, which we in this country all too often take for granted. The reality is that the only long-term solution for the Syrian regime is one that regains the consent of the Syrian people. Failure to reach out to a political solution will only result in Syria descending into further turmoil and bloodshed. The international community must do all it can to impress that on the Syrian regime.
	President Assad is at a crossroads. He can either respond to the demands of his people or he can continue his efforts to repress them, but only one course of action will leave his regime with security and legitimacy. If he chooses repression over reform, I believe he will ultimately be swept from power. I therefore welcome the steps the Government have taken to put pressure on the Syrian regime, but I ask the Secretary of State to say in his winding-up speech whether the discussions with the Syrian ambassador touched on rights of access to that country for the foreign media, and what the Syrian representative told him about the national dialogue proposed by that country’s President.
	The events of the last few months in north Africa and across the middle east highlight the urgent need to review our arms export regime, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made clear. People across the middle east and north Africa have displayed true courage in standing up against oppressive regimes that have used the most modern equipment and munitions to try to break their will. It is difficult for any of us in this House to stomach the idea that British-made equipment may have been used against these courageous people.
	Of course it is right for the UK to play an active part in the international negotiations that have recently started at the United Nations aimed at securing a global arms trade treaty, but we must not lose sight of the choices that we ourselves can make to tighten our export regime. That is why I welcome both the Foreign Secretary’s review of British arms export controls announced last month and the fact that the Government have revoked more than 150 export licences in recent weeks—but we can, and we must, go further. We need to tighten controls on both exports and re-exports, and we need to make sure that we put human rights at the heart of our consideration of which countries we should export to. When will the Foreign Secretary’s arms export review be published, and will it be brought before the House for debate?
	It should now be crystal clear that the long-term interests of this country will always be best found in standing next to the people who seek freedom, and against the regimes that would simply impose their will. This strategic reality needs to be reflected in all corners of our Government and in all parts of the United Kingdom’s global posture.

Rushanara Ali: Today’s debate is profoundly important and comes at a critical time. I thank the Secretary of State for providing Government time for it in order to consider the issues facing the people of the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as our military, political and humanitarian response to the multiple crises in those crucial parts of the world.
	Following the earlier debate on the military covenant, it is right that we pay tribute to the brave servicemen and women who are engaged in protecting civilians in Libya under UN resolution 1973, as well as to our troops in Afghanistan. In particular, I wish to join others in paying tribute to Nigel Dean Mead, from 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Helmand province yesterday. We remember the continued price paid by innocent people whose lives have been taken in terrorist attacks around the world, most recently in Morocco and, last week, in Pakistan. I also wish to reiterate Labour Members’ grave concern about the killing of protesters by Israeli soldiers on the Syrian-Israeli border and about the injuries of civilians in the Palestinian territories. We join the Foreign Secretary in reaffirming calls for restraint on both sides.
	A common theme that has arisen from events in Tunisia and Egypt, and the current situations in Libya and Syria, has been the way in which citizens have responded to the abuse of power by, and the lack of legitimacy in, their Governments. People have taken to the streets in their millions to bring about badly needed change. Few could have imagined just how much a few short months would change the world, as the self-immolation of one man led to a chain of unstoppable events around the Arab world. Tunisia will hold its first elections to a new Assembly in July, Egypt will go to the polls in September, and we are seeing rapid change in a number of other countries.
	However, it is also vital to pay closer attention to the need to tackle global inequality and economic inequality, given the situation in those middle-income countries. Many of the international financial institutions did not foresee what was about to happen in these countries, which did not have significant levels of poverty but did have great inequality. The historical failure of their Governments to deliver political and human rights opportunities, and economic growth, continues to fuel the protests, and this country has a crucial role to play in supporting the people of those countries.
	For many, these events have been a cry for freedom, democracy and transparency after decades of repression and abuse of power by those in positions of authority and responsibility; they have been about the need to be treated with dignity and fairness, and the opportunity to have jobs and decent chances in life. The international community must do everything possible to help realise those aspirations and ensure that the brave people of those countries genuinely have the best chance for a better future.
	Excellent speeches have been made by many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in which they have highlighted their great insight, expertise, conviction and passion for the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke with great passion and expertise about the need to support Yemen, about the threat from terrorism and about the many challenges facing that country, including the need to tackle poverty. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke of the importance of the EU providing support for the middle east in its pursuit of democracy and human rights. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge
	and Malling (Sir John Stanley) raised concerns about the UK Government’s export licences for arms to the middle east.
	The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) spoke with great passion about Britain’s relationship with Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted the many challenges faced by Pakistan and the loss of thousands of civilian lives in terror attacks, including the one last week. It is vital that we continue to work closely with Pakistan despite the challenges and some of the criticisms. We must recognise, as many have in the House today, the importance of working with Pakistan, maintaining our alliances and ensuring that the terror threat is overcome.
	Many Members have spoken with great expertise and passion about the situation in Libya and the middle east and, in particular, their concerns about the UN resolution, which we support, the dangers of scope creep and the parameters within which the resolution is implemented. Clearly, there are great concerns about stalemate, as highlighted by a number of Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway).
	Let me turn to a recent tragedy involving migrants. The Government rightly supported the International Organisation for Migration, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will have been deeply concerned about reports last week that a boat full of migrants, including young children, died after their distress calls were not acted on. Only 11 survived. Will the Government clarify whether British forces intercepted any such distress messages, and say that they will co-operate with any international investigation?
	As has been touched on by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Croydon South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), in the light of the recent comments made by the Chief of the Defence Staff about upping the ante, may we also have an assurance that the House will be consulted before any significant change is made to targeting policy in Libya? Given the concerns expressed by Baroness Amos, will the Secretary of State assure us that a thorough assessment will be made of the humanitarian impact if military action is stepped up? In particular, if power, water and fuel cuts are made, as reported in some of the press, there are grave concerns about a humanitarian catastrophe. That contradicts the very reason why we are there: our military action is designed to protect civilians. There are also concerns about access for medical personnel, and we would appreciate an update on whether we are providing additional support to get medical personnel into Libya.
	At a meeting today with Michelle Bachelet, the head of UN Women, the shadow Secretary of State for International Development and I discussed the concerns about sexual violence faced by women. May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the British Government will ensure that every effort is made to provide security and safety for women in conflict, not just in Libya but in other parts of the world? As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), drawing on her experiences in Iraq, human rights, particularly those of women, are crucial and are often left out of major discussions and political negotiations on matters of conflict.
	Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members raised concerns about what is happening in Syria. We, like the Government, denounce the appalling violence that the Government of Syria are using against their own people. We recognise the complexity and difficulty of the situation and we call on the Government to do everything possible to ensure that every pressure is put on the Government of Syria to bring an end to the violence against their people, who are out protesting. Will the Secretary of State for International Development, in his summing up, update the House on his assessment of the situation on Syria’s borders, and tell us whether large numbers of civilians are starting to leave that country?
	On the situation in the middle east, many right hon. and hon. Members spoke passionately about the situation in Israel and Palestine and the need for a lasting peaceful settlement, with many highlighting the deaths of Palestinians over the weekend and the security concerns of Israel. We heard speeches from both sides of the argument: my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke with great expertise about the plight of the people of Palestine, and others spoke of concerns about the security issues facing the Israeli people. It is clear that we desperately need a lasting settlement in the middle east, and we urge the Government to do everything possible to keep the pressure on the US and on the Israeli and Palestinian Governments to resume negotiations as soon as possible.
	I now want to address issues concerning Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly the political settlement in Afghanistan and the great concern about the exclusion of women from those negotiations. That concern has been raised a number of times in our discussions with politicians in Afghanistan, and we very much hope that the UK Government will do everything possible to make sure that women have a strong voice in the peace process, including in discussions about the role of the Taliban. There are particular fears about the violation of women’s human rights in Afghanistan, and we must do everything possible to ensure that those rights are not neglected—not just in Afghanistan but in Libya, Egypt and the many other countries in the middle east that currently face such challenges.
	In conclusion, I reiterate how vital it is for the House to debate this important issue and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the opportunity to do so. I hope that in his summing up the Secretary of State for International Development will shed light on the many issues that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that he will address some of the questions that have not yet been answered, particularly about the widening scope of the UN resolution and about the humanitarian situation in Libya and other countries. I also hope that he will ensure that Britain provides the support needed not only to bring an end to the violence in countries such as Libya, but to ensure that the aspirations and hopes of the people who have been out on the streets demonstrating over recent months are realised.

Andrew Mitchell: This has been an important, timely and wide-ranging debate—a huge mouthful of a debate with a number of very fine speeches, not least
	from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who speaks for the Opposition. I will address the issue of Libya at the end of my remarks and I will write to hon. Members if I do not cover the issues that they raised.
	Let me start with a view of the discussion on the middle east. The transition sweeping the middle east is an historic opportunity for the region, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The Government are working to ensure that the international community rises to the challenge in its support for countries that embark on change. It is in our interests to ensure that those transitions succeed, but significant challenges must be addressed before lasting stability can be achieved. In particular, there must be the political and economic reforms that will support sustainable growth and facilitate the transition to a freer, fairer and more inclusive society. Britain is pushing the international institutions to play a leading role in galvanising support for that process, including by meeting the significant financial needs. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said, the role of the European Union is critical. We are pressing for the restructuring of European neighbourhood funding for the region to ensure that it backs strong commitments to political and economic reform and to make it easier for countries in the region to trade with Europe. We also plan to fund a “know-how” facility to provide immediate access to expertise on economic reform. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) raised that issue. The facility will be closely linked to the efforts and expertise of the international financial institutions.
	As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the European Union has a huge and critical role to play. The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the expansion of the Foreign Office footprint, but said that it was not expanding in the middle east. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already represented in all the countries that we are discussing today, and more widely. The mission to Benghazi is an example of the expansion of the Foreign Office in a timely and sensible way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) spoke with his usual expertise about Tunisia. He spoke wisely about elections and in particular about the importance of opening up markets. The difficult but important subject of the international arms trade was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I emphasise that there are high British standards for this trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out in an excellent intervention. In the end the answer is for the international community to accept the need for an international arms trade treaty.
	On the occupied Palestinian territories, the wave of democratic movements that we are witnessing represents a unique opportunity to take forward the middle east peace process. The violence over the weekend at Israel’s borders underlines the urgency of making progress. With British support, the Palestinian Authority has developed its institutions to the point where the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the World Bank have recognised them as technically ready for
	statehood. To achieve a two-state solution it is important that this work continues. The recent announcement of a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a step in the right direction if it leads to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace—a point set out eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).
	We heard disparate but firmly held views across the Chamber this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was characteristically forthright, and I thank him for his kind comments about my Department. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), on whose civil partnership the whole House will wish to congratulate him, from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who entered the House on the same day as I did and whose views have not changed one jot in the past 24 years, from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) in a fine speech, and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who touched on Israel in a wide-ranging speech. Everyone was united in the absolute requirement to make progress and to take advantage of the changed circumstances, which were eloquently described.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose —

Andrew Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, I turn now to Yemen. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) warned of the continuing crisis. I will consider carefully some of his wider comments. With reference to Yemen, I am concerned that alongside the current political impasse, we are seeing an escalating economic crisis. In particular we are seeing increasing reports of fuel shortages and rises in food prices. Any further deterioration in the economy could prompt a much broader humanitarian crisis, not least because without fuel, much of Yemen cannot be provided with water.
	The British Government are working with aid agencies to ensure that they can respond to humanitarian needs in Yemen, and I can announce today that we will be committing additional support to UNICEF and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs under the United Nations humanitarian response plan for Yemen. Through this support we will prevent 11,000 children under five from dying of malnutrition, vaccinate 54,000 children against measles, saving lives and preventing blindness, deafness and brain damage in over 2,000 children, and ensure that agencies have rapid access to funds if Yemen tips into a humanitarian crisis.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that announcement and thank him very much for it. What he has said to the House tonight will save the lives of many Yemeni people, including children.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	I have even greater concerns about the situation in Syria. The current ongoing human rights abuses and lack of access for humanitarian organisations is particularly worrying. If organisations are to compile an accurate
	picture of need, sustained unhindered humanitarian access is essential. I call on the Syrian Government to allow United Nations humanitarian organisations unfettered access to undertake assessments of the situation across Syria without delay. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the EU will insist that the violence must stop or additional measures will be taken, and I note that there was strong support across the House for that stance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) mentioned the importance of international press and humanitarian access in Syria, but I can offer nothing for his or anyone else’s comfort on that point tonight. Finally, with regard to the sensible comments made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, we are watching the humanitarian situation on the borders with great care. I discussed that matter a few days ago with Jakob Kellenberger, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
	Pakistan, which has been mentioned a great deal in the debate, remains a top priority for the Government. It can meet its enormous potential only if it works to stabilise its economy in the short term and to educate and develop opportunities for its rapidly expanding population in the longer term. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will benefit regional and global stability and security.
	Britain will therefore support Pakistan in achieving this end. As the Prime Minister announced last month, our aim is to help Pakistan to get 4 million children into school, out of a population of 17 million who do not go to school. Pakistan could become Britain’s largest country development programme, but only if we see commitment and progress on reform from its Government, including a fairer approach to taxing its elite.
	The people of Pakistan have suffered grievously from terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, many thousands of civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured. The right hon. Member for Warley made the same point. Osama bin Laden was no friend to the people of Pakistan; all he brought was a nihilistic message of death and destruction. His death, however, presents an opportunity for a brighter future in Pakistan and the region. Pakistan can make greater strides in its fight against extremism and the way is now clear for the Taliban to make a decisive break from al-Qaeda and join the Afghan political process. The choice is theirs. Peace and security can be improved for Afghan and Pakistan civilians on both sides of their border.
	To grasp this opportunity, Pakistan needs to make a clean break with the past. There are serious questions to be answered on bin Laden’s support network in Pakistan, and we welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation into the matter. Nevertheless, it is right that we remain steadfast in our support for Pakistan as its democratically elected Government continue their fight against terrorism.
	Pakistan matters to us. In an increasingly interconnected world, the UK cannot simply look on from the sidelines. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in this country. We have a long, close and historic relationship with Pakistan. What happens there directly affects us. There is no serious alternative to our continued engagement with Pakistan. Neither the region, nor we, would be safer by leaving a nuclear power that is in danger of
	extremism and instability to its fate, a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) made in an interesting and thoughtful speech.
	Our engagement with Pakistan must therefore be both long term and strategic. Increasing access to high-quality education and developing greater economic opportunities will improve the lives of the Pakistani people and help strengthen resilience to terrorism. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will not only benefit regional stability and security, but directly benefit our own security.
	On Afghanistan, the Chair of the International Development Committee noted that we should not concentrate only on military aspects, important though they are, and I join the whole House in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead, who recently lost his life. Although the next four years will be critical, 2015 will not be the end of the story. This is why Britain has made a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. It is unrealistic to expect the Afghan Government to become perfect in such a relatively short time, but they must be strong enough to secure the support of their people and defend themselves. To achieve these objectives, the Department for International Development is focusing on three development aims: supporting stability in insecure areas, stimulating growth and building the capability of the Afghan Government to deliver basic services.
	I was able to see for myself the very real impact that aid is having on stability when I recently visited Helmand. British assistance has helped to train more than 2,000 policemen and women, built 12 checkpoints, with 16 more in construction, and laid more than 80 km of roads, giving local farmers the access to markets that they badly need.
	At the same time, we are helping people to develop the skills that they need to improve their lives. We are developing plans to provide vocational training for 45,000 people, and that will include funding Turquoise Mountain to equip almost 200 men and women with traditional skills and crafts.
	Although there is evidence of progress, the scale of Afghanistan’s challenge remains considerable, as the recent disgraceful events relating to the Kabul Bank have illustrated. We are working closely with the International Monetary Fund and the Government of Afghanistan to address the very serious issues that have arisen. They are undoubtedly a setback, but I can reassure the House that we have wasted no time in taking steps to protect British taxpayers’ money.
	On the wider economic front, Afghanistan is making good progress. With British support, it has achieved 20% growth in revenue each year since 2002, and economic growth averaged 9% between 2002 and 2010.
	The mining sector will be absolutely critical to future growth. I met Minister Shahrani in March and was encouraged to hear about the reforms that he is making—reforms that Britain is supporting. He also told me of his success in letting a number of mining concessions, and the details of the 108 contracts on the departmental website are also welcome evidence of its commitment to transparency and accountability.
	Decades of conflict have inevitably left Afghanistan’s civil service ill equipped to do its job. During my visit, I announced funding for the Government-led civilian technical assistance programme, which will provide
	international and regional expertise to support local and national Government as we train the next generation of Afghan civil servants.
	On Libya, I pay tribute to the thoughtful and important speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and for Salisbury (John Glen), and to the interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I wish to address directly one of the points that the right hon. Member for Warley made in his opening remarks.
	Britain made two important decisions on humanitarian issues early on in the conflict. First, we gave very strong support to the weight of migrant workers moving across the borders into Tunisia and Egypt, and as a result of that support from Britain and others almost 800,000 migrant workers have crossed those borders and tonight fewer than 10,000 are caught on them. That help has prevented a logistical crisis from turning into a humanitarian emergency.
	Our second key decision was to announce that we would finance the rescue of 5,000 poor migrant workers who have been caught out on the portside in Misrata and subject to shelling and other attacks in recent weeks. Britain has been able to lift some 4,000 of them out of Misrata, and the final boat to remove the last 1,000 should go in any day now. The House will be aware that Misrata is no longer in Gaddafi’s hands but has been completely taken over by the interim transitional national council.
	In addition to that, we are also working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Medical Corps to supply medicines, 30 tonnes of which were recently delivered by boat to Misrata, and to support 100,000 internally displaced persons as well as 3,000 walking wounded.
	We will shortly deploy a stabilisation response team, including some 10 stabilisation experts and 20 support and protection officials, to join together with the United States, Italy and the European Union. That team will work on infrastructure demands, basic services, justice, security and a political plan, all of which will be necessary following the ceasing of the conflict and as part of an early recovery.
	We will of course work closely with the United Nations. When I saw Michelle Bachelet this morning, I had a chance to discuss with her the very matter that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised. All of us believe that the plan that is worked up must be run by the United Nations, owned by the Libyans and supported by the region, the European Union and the international financial institutions.
	All of us in the Chamber can draw inspiration from the way in which democracy is beginning to flower throughout the middle east. The Arab spring marks a truly historic moment not only for the middle east itself, but for us here in the United Kingdom. Our own peace and prosperity depend on the stability of the region and on the rights and freedoms that it espouses. Yes, there are challenges, and we will rise to them. The international community—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Sittings of the House (24 May)

Ordered,
	That, on Tuesday 24 May, the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Justice

Ordered,
	That Mrs Siân C. James be discharged from the Justice Committee and Jeremy Corbyn be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of  Selection .)

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I inquire whether a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has any intention of coming to the House to explain and answer questions on the written statement that was issued on Friday about performing wild animals in circuses. Following a consultation started by the previous Government, there had been an expectation that the coalition Government would bring in a ban on exotic animals in circuses. There is now a written statement saying that the Government are not going to do that. I hope you will agree, Mr Speaker, that a Minister should come to the House and explain why that is the case.

Mr Speaker: I have received no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement. I am aware of the close interest in the subject that the hon. Gentleman has long expressed. In view of his 14 years’ experience in the House, he will be well aware of ways in which he can continue to pursue this matter, and I trust that he will.

FARMING (DROUGHTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Therese Coffey: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting this debate. I also thank the many hon. Members who have said that they will be present, one or two of whom may intervene during the debate.
	This spring has been very dry; March was the driest in 50 years. Suffolk has suffered having had just 13% of its average rainfall across the entire county. Until this weekend, no rain had fallen in my constituency since February; that indicates the general dryness of what we have been suffering. My constituency has a mixture of clay fields, which have been able to absorb some water over the winter, and, predominantly, sand fields, on which a significant amount of agriculture relies.
	I recognise that the consumer will probably do okay out of all this, because there is no prospect of a hosepipe ban in my part of England, and I understand that that is equally unlikely in other parts of the country. I also recognise that some farmers welcome these temperatures and are not worried about the lack of rain, because it is producing bumper crops of fruits and similar produce.

Stephen Phillips: If this drought continues, it will affect not only those in rural constituencies but the pocket of every constituent of every Member of this House in six months to a year’s time. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is therefore extraordinary that there is no Opposition Member, shadow Minister or shadow Whip in the House—in fact, nobody on the Opposition Benches at all?

Therese Coffey: I share my hon. and learned Friend’s great concern. More than 10 of us are in the House, which is unusual for an Adjournment debate. Hon. Friends present represent rural constituencies and urban constituencies. Given that some of our colleagues from across the way claim to represent rural areas, their farmers and constituents will be disappointed.
	My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that this situation will come to impact on every single person in this country. One of the challenges that our farmers face is that irrigation is needed to meet the quality standards that our supermarkets demand for what they will sell on their shelves. This is also about the price that we are prepared to pay for our food. There is an impact not just on the price of a potato or an onion, but on the feed for our livestock because of a lack of forage and hay, which will have repercussions next winter. We will all pay a heavy price for that.

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend might be surprised to hear a Member from west Wales complaining about the lack of rain, but does she agree that her point about feed price will have a significant downstream effect on dairy producers, who are beginning to realise that their industry will be affected in six to eight months’ time?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend are right to recognise that this issue will impact on everyone. If our countrymen are happy to see greater imports, perhaps we will be protected from the price surges, but I believe that given the choice most people in this country would prefer to buy British, so we must do something as a consequence.
	As I said, this issue does not affect all farmers or all counties across the country, but it does impact on the bread basket of our fair land. In my constituency, spraying has started early. Irrigation has long been part of the agriculture of Suffolk Coastal, which has a similar climate to north Africa. We have imported technologies from Morocco, Israel and similar places in recognition of the fact that we have one of the driest areas, although I recognise that one of my colleagues believes that his area is drier. This issue is impacting not just on agriculture, but on wildlife. Landguard nature reserve near Felixstowe is facing similar troubles and the lack of water is having an impact on biodiversity.
	I will come on to the realities affecting farmers in my part of the world. The people who abstract came together in 1997 to form the East Suffolk Water Abstractors Group. They work with the Environment Agency to abstract correctly and appropriately to balance the needs of different water users. Most people have a quota for the year. Some people have taken a gamble by starting to spray early compared with previous seasons. They are concerned that they might be restricted later in the season. Thus far, the Environment Agency has not shown the flexibility that it did in 2009, when it allowed people to abstract later. I recognise that the Environment Agency has been proactive on this front and is working with farmers and other people to manage the situation. I pay tribute to it, because it is difficult to strike the right balance. However, there is no question but that people in my constituency are worried about the potential lack of water for their crops.
	Some people abstract from ground water. Thus far, the aquifers are coping, but there is genuine concern about what will be available later in the summer and in the early autumn if there is no further rainfall. The situation is more worrying for people who abstract from the rivers. This matter has been referred to by other Members who are worried about the impact on biodiversity. I believe that we should be more worried about the impact on food and agriculture. Frankly, other things can be cosmetic and temporary, whereas if farming is wiped out in certain areas of our country, it will greatly disadvantage food security.
	What is the risk to rivers? In my constituency, the Blyth is running very slowly. Other parties, such as the internal drainage boards and the water companies, sometimes help by pumping water out to increase the flow. However, some of the farmers in my constituency are facing the reality that, by the end of next month, they may no longer be able to abstract at all. That is particularly worrying. Will the Minister say what co-ordinated action is being taken by the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards, water companies and farmers to understand how we can ensure that abstraction can continue?
	I recognise that back in 2006, the last time we had a particularly dry summer, there was some voluntary activity that worked very well. People ended up abstracting
	every other day, and they managed to cope through that summer. I am keen to ensure that there is similar preparation in future.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I inform the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising farmer.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the world is a much more precarious place with regard to food than it has been for many years? Our world reserves are much lower than they have been, and countries such as China are importing much more maize and wheat than they ever used to. A shortage of production in this country for this harvest is therefore likely to have a much greater effect on household bills than it has in the past. Will she join me in urging the Government to adopt every flexible measure that they can, particularly in relation to water?

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that correct point. In my view, water is the new oil, and we need to ensure that we are careful with it where we can be. We have already seen cases of commodity prices spiking thanks to demand from the far east, particularly China, and we have felt the consequences. I agree that we need to be able to feed ourselves as best we can and not be subject to unnecessary spikes.
	The rural development programme has given some priority to the management of resources such as water. In my constituency, the East of England Development Agency has undertaken some relevant projects. I do not have the details, but I am led to believe that 100,000 cubic metres of new storage facility will be made available in the summer. I would like the Minister to give us an understanding of the influence that he could have in helping the future programme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the existing programmes that are under the auspices of development agencies, to address the real need that exists. I understand that licences need to be made more flexible so that more water can be harvested in the winter, and that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 changed the parameters so that those harvesting 10,000 cubic metres took on a significantly greater regulatory burden. What can we do to remove that burden and encourage co-operative reservoirs?
	I will put in a bid for my area. A tiny part of my constituency managed to get in on the Leader programme, and I know that Suffolk is one of the pilot counties for the “Total Environment” scheme. I hope that we will be able to move forward after 2013 and allow Suffolk to form more co-operatives, so that funding can be diverted towards water storage. That would be good for farmers, for consumers and for the environment, and I am sure the Minister will put his mind to it.
	I know that the farming community has great confidence in our Minister. He is a Suffolk man who was born in my constituency, and he was a farmer. [Interruption.] He still is a farmer—I apologise. I was not fully cognisant of that. The industry is looking for flexibility for the Environment Agency and for local farmers and stakeholders, and on that point I am more than confident in handing over to him.

James Paice: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk
	Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her initiative in calling for the debate and persuading you, Mr Speaker, to grant her this opportunity. It allows us to focus on an issue that is becoming of increasing importance every day not only to farmers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has pointed out, to the rest of the general public.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal has rightly said, she represents the area where I was born and grew up, so I have a particular affinity for her constituents and understand the problems that they face.
	In the title of the debate on the Order Paper, my hon. Friend uses the words “potential drought”. I asked the Environment Agency earlier today what the definition of a drought is, and I was told that there are a number of definitions, none of which yet fit. Nevertheless, most people in the countryside and most farmers would argue that we are in a difficult situation, which has been described to me as “an intense dry spell”. My hon. Friend spoke of the rainfall in Suffolk, but nationally, we have received only 61% of normal rainfall over the past three months, and in April we received only 24% of that average.
	Soil moisture is at a level more usual at the start of June. Despite that, reservoirs are mostly at near-normal levels, but as my hon. Friend has rightly said, rivers are experiencing exceptionally low flows, which I shall come back to. Those low river levels are beginning to impact on farmers who rely on water abstraction to irrigate their crops, but they are also beginning to cause environmental damage and to have an impact on canals and waterways, as my hon. Friend has said.
	So far, the dry spell has meant mixed fortunes for farmers. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, this has been a good season in parts of the country where they grow a lot of fruit. The weather has improved pollination rates, and we are getting English strawberries earlier than ever. It is not all bad news, but as she has said, and as I know from my constituency, crops on light and medium land are badly affected.
	At Question Time last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House that she would this week convene a water meeting with water companies and with farming and environment groups to ensure that we are properly prepared for prolonged dry conditions. That meeting took place today, and I am happy that I coincidentally have this opportunity to inform my hon. Friend and the House of some of the outcomes.
	My hon. Friend has referred to 1976. The situation is very bad in our part of England—the east of England—but it is not yet a repetition of 1976, which has gone down in the annals of history as probably the worst ever event for farmers. I add that in the past three years, EEDA, to which my hon. Friend has referred, has assisted in the construction of some 26 farm reservoirs, of which there were very few back in 1976. At today’s meeting, we were told by farmers’ representatives that the latest estimate was for a 12% reduction in cereal yields, although that hides a massive range—some estimates suggest that some farmers will experience a 50% reduction.
	The impact on the horticulture sector, in both fruit and vegetables, is much more variable. As I have said, top fruit and soft fruit have generally benefited, whereas
	vegetable production has needed irrigation much earlier in the season than usual, as my hon. Friend has rightly said. That means that growers who have a limited amount of water to use, whether from a reservoir or abstraction rights, must think about rationing their usage.
	The picture on livestock farms is one of concern—mainly about costs, particularly following a prolonged winter—but it is not yet one of panic, although I stress that we are only in the middle of May. In the dairy sector, the National Farmers Union advice is that the dry weather has brought forward the grass silage harvest, and boosted grass-sugar and energy levels, which has benefited those in good grass-growing regions.
	Further east, back in our part of the world, and in the drier parts of the country, the dry spring will mean that there is less grass to cut or to graze cows on this spring. For all areas, re-growth will be stunted if there is a prolonged dry period. At a time when concentrate feed is very expensive, as my hon. Friend has said, reduced forage crop yields could mean substantially increased costs to farmers throughout the rest of this year. It is also worth mentioning that a poor cereal harvest—cereal farmers are experiencing very short straw—will mean a shortage of straw, much of which is exported for livestock from the east to the west of the country.
	As my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that the main problem is for farmers who do not have reservoirs, who do not abstract from groundwater and who abstract from our rivers. Farmers have to compete for those abstraction rights with water companies, which abstract for human consumption, and with other industries. Overall, therefore, there are diminishing supplies. At this morning’s meeting, we felt this was an issue of great importance, and I can tell the House that we will be arranging a further meeting shortly specifically to consider the competing priorities for abstraction.
	I emphasise that all Ministers in the Department recognise that, as my hon. Friend has said, both yield and quality of produce are affected by water supply. We do not wish to see farmers restricted unnecessarily, but obviously none of us can guarantee that those restrictions will not be required. I was not aware that, as she has suggested, farmers already believe that they will be restricted by the end of this month. I will consider that point tomorrow. However, the Environment Agency assured us today that it is trying to work with farmers to minimise the consequences. The point was raised—this is very relevant in today’s world—about allowing farmers with reservoirs to top them up during any summer surges. As we have seen over the past few years, we get horrendous summer storms. In a draught, there can suddenly be torrential storms, and it seems sensible that on those occasions, when there is a surge in the river, they could be used to top up reservoirs. That will be looked at.
	Irrigation is not the only problem, of course. Farmers, particularly in my hon. Friend’s area—I know it very well—which has large areas of light-land forestry and heath land, are concerned about the potential impact of fire during this dry period. We will continue to work closely with those on the ground to warn the public, wherever possible, of the risks of fire in those circumstances. As she has mentioned, however, there are also the problems facing habitats in wet areas resulting from water drying up.
	Taking a longer perspective, last week the Secretary of State published a Command Paper setting out the strong economic, social and environmental case for ensuring that our infrastructure is resilient enough to cope with the effects of climate change. Who can tell whether today’s circumstances are the result of climate change? None of us can. None the less, the document pays particular regard to water infrastructure, which will need to cope, we believe, with hotter and drier summers, more extreme weather events and changing precipitation patterns in the years to come.
	As my hon. Friend has said, water may well be today’s oil—or tomorrow’s oil at any rate—so to help realise the Government’s vision of a well-adapted infrastructure network that can continue to support our economy, our infrastructure operators have been instructed to prepare climate risk assessments under the Climate Change Act 2008. My noble Friend Lord Henley will publish those assessments from water companies this Friday.
	It is clear from what my hon. Friend and I have said that rights of water abstraction are a major issue for farmers. Work is going ahead, in consultation with farmers and a wide range of stakeholders, on the water White Paper, which we have already announced and hope to publish this autumn. We are considering whether to reform the water abstraction regime to facilitate investment, not least in reservoirs, and to respond to increased variability and the reduced availability of water owing to climate change. Of key interest to farmers will be the potential in such reform to increase the regulatory certainty in the abstraction regime in order to help farmers invest in storage.
	My hon. Friend has asked me about the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the regulations on reservoirs of more than 10,000 cubic metres. She is right that the Act allows the extension of the Reservoirs Act 1975 to those reservoirs in the 10,000 cubic metres to 25,000 cubic metres capacity range. Reservoirs that pose negligible risks to public safety will not be regulated. Many farm irrigation reservoirs are remote from built-up areas and are of low-embankment height, and that includes reservoirs currently regulated under the 1975 Act. I hope that goes some way to allaying her concerns.
	While I am talking about reservoirs, perhaps I should respond to my hon. Friend’s point about the rural development programme for England, through which, as she has rightly said, our development agency has assisted the 26 reservoirs to which I have referred. Even though regional development agencies will cease to exist—many are being phased out now—I assure her that the rural development programme for England, which we are bringing back in house at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will continue. I am not going to make light of the point that finances are obviously tight, and there have been some—I hope relatively small—reductions in the amount of money available. However, the overall programme and the assistance under it will remain in place for the rest of the programme.
	Of key interest to farmers will be regulatory certainty. We are working closely with our farmers to develop that reform. In our approach to the White Paper, we are also considering a package of shorter-term measures to facilitate trading in abstraction licences, which should assist farmers managing their water use efficiently. It may surprise my hon. Friend to know—indeed, it surprised me—that there are farmers with abstraction licences who do not use them. Indeed, I discovered that there was one close to my home only over the weekend—the farmer is now thinking about using it. That is the situation, so the ability to trade licences would be a step forward.
	We are also funding research into a wide range of issues, including investigating ways to improve water use. My hon. Friend referred several times to the use of spray irrigation, which is by far the commonest form of irrigation, although most people would accept that it probably wastes the most water. It is worth pointing out that those who use trickle irrigation are not subject to abstraction licences, so the more that we can do to improve water usage for irrigation—with more effective and perhaps novel strategies—the better. We are also investing in research that aims to anticipate the effects of climate change, so that we can be more accurate in helping people find the best ways to adapt. There is obviously also an issue when it comes to developing new and sustainable ways of providing livestock with sources of potable water, including novel methods for harvesting, storing and delivering water from rainfall, as well as from traditional sources such as rivers and streams.
	Finally, if I may say so, I am really pleased that my hon. Friend proposed this debate. Indeed, it is also novel to see so many hon. Friends present, which shows the level of interest in this issue, which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is a common subject of discussion among farmers, as I expect that you find in your constituency too, Mr Speaker. The weather has always been a subject of conversation, but this year more than ever, because farmers are understandably concerned. We do not know what the next few weeks hold. The Met Office forecast for the rest of May is not very encouraging for those who want rainfall, but beyond that none of us is prepared to speculate, least of all me. However, I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that we take the issue seriously. Today’s meeting was really a stock-taking exercise to establish what the situation is, so that we can be in a better position to react, within the realms of feasibility for any Government. I assure her that I am not about to become the Minister for drought and that I will not do a rain dance or anything like that. However, I hope that I have assured her that we are concerned and are doing all that we can to free up the system and ensure that her farmers and mine, along with those in other affected parts of the country, are able to produce the best crops that they can in difficult circumstances.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.